6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb's Up to States' Choice on Gay Marriage

[Syriusly]

This is what I actually said, asshole. Stop putting words into my mouth. You hope a page bleeds over and you can remake the conversation to your liking without answering to the questions put to you... Here is what was said:

As I have said- it appears that you specifically hate children.
You have argued that the State has an interest in ensuring a stable home for children- of heterosexual couples.
Because heterosexuals generally have children- and because you argue marriage is important for those children.

But the children of homosexual couples? Apparently you think that they need no such benefits of marriage like the children of heterosexual couples.

This isn't a question of the small number of children "needing the benefits of marriage" from gay arrangements today...or rather it is that question actually...
It's this small number's "rights" vs the overwhelming numbers of future children that can be predicted to suffer if gay marriage is incentivized by the various states to be missing one of their blood parents/the complimentarty gender 100% of the time. Children of single mothers would like those same benefits too. Do you hate them? Or are you now arguing that single mothers or fathers must be considered married (to themselves) also?

Syriously hates children. That much is obvious.

Well that makes as much sense as your arguments that children of heterosexual couples deserve protection but children of homosexual couples do not.

 

[Silhouette]

This is the conversation, and I will repeate it no matter how many pages you and "Rabbi" spam into oblivion:

As I have said- it appears that you specifically hate children.
You have argued that the State has an interest in ensuring a stable home for children- of heterosexual couples.
Because heterosexuals generally have children- and because you argue marriage is important for those children.

But the children of homosexual couples? Apparently you think that they need no such benefits of marriage like the children of heterosexual couples.

This isn't a question of the small number of children "needing the benefits of marriage" from gay arrangements today...or rather it is that question actually...
It's this small number's "rights" vs the overwhelming numbers of future children that can be predicted to suffer if gay marriage is incentivized by the various states to be missing one of their blood parents/the complimentarty gender 100% of the time. Children of single mothers would like those same benefits too. Do you hate them? Or are you now arguing that single mothers or fathers must be considered married (to themselves) also?

 

[Syriusly]

This is what I actually said, asshole. Stop putting words into my mouth. You hope a page bleeds over and you can remake the conversation to your liking without answering to the questions put to you... Here is what was said:

Okay- here we go again

You claim that the children of Bob and Jill deserve Bob and Jill to be married, because the children will benefit from marriage.
But you claim that the children of Bob and Bill, do not deserve Bob and Bill to be married, because the children of gay parents aren't.....well apparently worth as much to you

Feel free why you are in favor of the children of gay parents being considered with less value than the children of heterosexual couples. .

 

[The Rabbi]

As I have said- it appears that you specifically hate children.

You have argued that the State has an interest in ensuring a stable home for children- of heterosexual couples.
Because heterosexuals generally have children- and because you argue marriage is important for those children.

But the children of homosexual couples? Apparently you think that they need no such benefits of marriage like the children of heterosexual couples.

This isn't a question of the small number of children "needing the benefits of marriage" from gay arrangements today...or rather it is that question actually...

It's their "rights" vs the overwhelming numbers of future children that can be predicted to suffer if gay marriage is incentivized by the various states by missing one of their blood parents, the complimentarty gender 100% of the time. Children of single mothers would like those same benefits too. Do you hate them? Or are you now arguing that single mothers or fathers must be considered married also?

Well I am glad you are finally admitting that you don't care about the children of gay parents.

Children of single mothers face the same legal issues as children of single fathers.
Unless you want to argue that single parents should be outlawed, they are not part of the discussion.

You claim that the children of Bob and Jill deserve Bob and Jill to be married, because the children will benefit from marriage.
But you claim that the children of Bob and Bill, do not deserve Bob and Bill to be married, because the children of gay parents aren't.....well apparently worth as much to you.

That's actualluynothing like what he wrote. BUt we have established you are too stupid to read a paragraph and draw reasonable conclusions from it.

Actually it is.

Well I am glad you are finally admitting that you don't care about the children of gay parents.

Children of single mothers face the same legal issues as children of single fathers.
Unless you want to argue that single parents should be outlawed, they are not part of the discussion.

You claim that the children of Bob and Jill deserve Bob and Jill to be married, because the children will benefit from marriage.
But you claim that the children of Bob and Bill, do not deserve Bob and Bill to be married, because the children of gay parents aren't.....well apparently worth as much to you.

Actually you are claiming that. I claimed no such thing.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is what I actually said, asshole. Stop putting words into my mouth. You hope a page bleeds over and you can remake the conversation to your liking without answering to the questions put to you... Here is what was said:

Okay- here we go again

You claim that the children of Bob and Jill deserve Bob and Jill to be married, because the children will benefit from marriage.
But you claim that the children of Bob and Bill, do not deserve Bob and Bill to be married, because the children of gay parents aren't.....well apparently worth as much to you

Feel free why you are in favor of the children of gay parents being considered with less value than the children of heterosexual couples. .

HE's not claiming any such thing. Again, you show yourself incapable of understanding the argument. In which case you should just meekly shut the fuck up.

 

[Syriusly]

This is the conversation, and I will repeate it no matter how many pages you and "Rabbi" spam into oblivion:

As I have said- it appears that you specifically hate children.
You have argued that the State has an interest in ensuring a stable home for children- of heterosexual couples.
Because heterosexuals generally have children- and because you argue marriage is important for those children.

But the children of homosexual couples? Apparently you think that they need no such benefits of marriage like the children of heterosexual couples.

It's this small number's "rights" vs the overwhelming numbers of future children that can be predicted to suffer if gay marriage is incentivized by the various states to be missing one of their blood parents/the complimentarty gender 100% of the time.

So you are willing to sacrifice the well being of the children of same gender couples- to prevent future gay couples from marrying- and ensuring that their children will not be treated the same as heterosexual couples.

The fact is that gay couples have children- and will have children- regardless of marriage. That is factual.

Preventing them from marrying ONLY prevents their children from having married parents.

It does not ensure that a single child will be raised by their blood parents or a 'complimentary gender'.

All it does is ensure that the children of gay parents will not have married parents.

Like the children of straight parents can have.

And which you claim is important to the children of straight parents.

 

[Syriusly]

This is what I actually said, asshole. Stop putting words into my mouth. You hope a page bleeds over and you can remake the conversation to your liking without answering to the questions put to you... Here is what was said:

Okay- here we go again

You claim that the children of Bob and Jill deserve Bob and Jill to be married, because the children will benefit from marriage.
But you claim that the children of Bob and Bill, do not deserve Bob and Bill to be married, because the children of gay parents aren't.....well apparently worth as much to you

Feel free why you are in favor of the children of gay parents being considered with less value than the children of heterosexual couples. .

HE's not claiming any such thing. Again, you show yourself incapable of understanding the argument. In which case you should just meekly shut the fuck up.

Okay- here we go again

You claim that the children of Bob and Jill deserve Bob and Jill to be married, because the children will benefit from marriage.
But you claim that the children of Bob and Bill, do not deserve Bob and Bill to be married, because the children of gay parents aren't.....well apparently worth as much to you

Feel free why you are in favor of the children of gay parents being considered with less value than the children of heterosexual couples. .

 

[The Rabbi]

Yoi appear incapable of reading something and drawing appropriate conclusions from it.
That means you are too stupid to engage in debate.

I note that you don't actually attempt to argue that you don't hate children.

Because it would appear that you specifically hate children.

You have argued that the State has an interest in ensuring a stable home for children- of heterosexual couples.
Because heterosexuals generally have children- and because you argue marriage is important for those children.

But the children of homosexual couples? Apparently you think that they need no such benefits of marriage like the children of heterosexual couples

You are correct. I hate children. I hate blacks, homos, spics, dogs, mom and apple pie too.
What were you saying again?

None of that is a surprise to me.

SUrely.
But none of it invalidates my argument, an argument you cannot refute because you cannot understand it.

I cannot understand that which is nonsensical.

See. It appears like nonsense to you. Much the same as if someone were discoursing on physics in Urdu. The fact that you do not understand it does not mean it is without worth. Rather it is testament to your ignorance and stupidiity.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is what I actually said, asshole. Stop putting words into my mouth. You hope a page bleeds over and you can remake the conversation to your liking without answering to the questions put to you... Here is what was said:

Okay- here we go again

You claim that the children of Bob and Jill deserve Bob and Jill to be married, because the children will benefit from marriage.
But you claim that the children of Bob and Bill, do not deserve Bob and Bill to be married, because the children of gay parents aren't.....well apparently worth as much to you

Feel free why you are in favor of the children of gay parents being considered with less value than the children of heterosexual couples. .

HE's not claiming any such thing. Again, you show yourself incapable of understanding the argument. In which case you should just meekly shut the fuck up.

Okay- here we go again

You claim that the children of Bob and Jill deserve Bob and Jill to be married, because the children will benefit from marriage.
But you claim that the children of Bob and Bill, do not deserve Bob and Bill to be married, because the children of gay parents aren't.....well apparently worth as much to you

Feel free why you are in favor of the children of gay parents being considered with less value than the children of heterosexual couples. .

I claim no such thing. ONly you claim that. What part of that do you not understand?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Rabbi simply can't understand that he does not make and enforce the law.

 

[Syriusly]

I note that you don't actually attempt to argue that you don't hate children.

Because it would appear that you specifically hate children.

You have argued that the State has an interest in ensuring a stable home for children- of heterosexual couples.
Because heterosexuals generally have children- and because you argue marriage is important for those children.

But the children of homosexual couples? Apparently you think that they need no such benefits of marriage like the children of heterosexual couples

You are correct. I hate children. I hate blacks, homos, spics, dogs, mom and apple pie too.
What were you saying again?

None of that is a surprise to me.

SUrely.
But none of it invalidates my argument, an argument you cannot refute because you cannot understand it.

I cannot understand that which is nonsensical.

See. It appears like nonsense to you. Much the same as if someone were discoursing on physics in Urdu. The fact that you do not understand it does not mean it is without worth. Rather it is testament to your ignorance and stupidiity.

It appears to be nonsense to me- because it is nonsense.

I can no more understand it than I can a cow trying to lecture me on physics....

 

[The Rabbi]

You are correct. I hate children. I hate blacks, homos, spics, dogs, mom and apple pie too.
What were you saying again?

None of that is a surprise to me.

SUrely.
But none of it invalidates my argument, an argument you cannot refute because you cannot understand it.

I cannot understand that which is nonsensical.

See. It appears like nonsense to you. Much the same as if someone were discoursing on physics in Urdu. The fact that you do not understand it does not mean it is without worth. Rather it is testament to your ignorance and stupidiity.

It appears to be nonsense to me- because it is nonsense.

I can no more understand it than I can a cow trying to lecture me on physics....

No, you think it's nonsense because you cannot understand it. But for smart people it makes perfect sense.

 

[Syriusly]

None of that is a surprise to me.

SUrely.
But none of it invalidates my argument, an argument you cannot refute because you cannot understand it.

I cannot understand that which is nonsensical.

See. It appears like nonsense to you. Much the same as if someone were discoursing on physics in Urdu. The fact that you do not understand it does not mean it is without worth. Rather it is testament to your ignorance and stupidiity.

It appears to be nonsense to me- because it is nonsense.

I can no more understand it than I can a cow trying to lecture me on physics....

No, you think it's nonsense because you cannot understand it. But for smart people it makes perfect sense.

I have yet to see any smart person make that argument.

 

[The Rabbi]

SUrely.
But none of it invalidates my argument, an argument you cannot refute because you cannot understand it.

I cannot understand that which is nonsensical.

See. It appears like nonsense to you. Much the same as if someone were discoursing on physics in Urdu. The fact that you do not understand it does not mean it is without worth. Rather it is testament to your ignorance and stupidiity.

It appears to be nonsense to me- because it is nonsense.

I can no more understand it than I can a cow trying to lecture me on physics....

No, you think it's nonsense because you cannot understand it. But for smart people it makes perfect sense.

I have yet to see any smart person make that argument.

Of course you havent seen it. Hell, youi dont even know what that argument is.

 

[The Rabbi]

SUrely.
But none of it invalidates my argument, an argument you cannot refute because you cannot understand it.

I cannot understand that which is nonsensical.

See. It appears like nonsense to you. Much the same as if someone were discoursing on physics in Urdu. The fact that you do not understand it does not mean it is without worth. Rather it is testament to your ignorance and stupidiity.

It appears to be nonsense to me- because it is nonsense.

I can no more understand it than I can a cow trying to lecture me on physics....

No, you think it's nonsense because you cannot understand it. But for smart people it makes perfect sense.

I have yet to see any smart person make that argument.

Of course you havent seen it. Hell, youi dont even know what that argument is.

 

[Syriusly]

I cannot understand that which is nonsensical.

See. It appears like nonsense to you. Much the same as if someone were discoursing on physics in Urdu. The fact that you do not understand it does not mean it is without worth. Rather it is testament to your ignorance and stupidiity.

It appears to be nonsense to me- because it is nonsense.

I can no more understand it than I can a cow trying to lecture me on physics....

No, you think it's nonsense because you cannot understand it. But for smart people it makes perfect sense.

I have yet to see any smart person make that argument.

Of course you havent seen it. Hell, youi dont even know what that argument is.

I have seen lots of smart people make arguments here on USMB.

Haven't seen one make your argument.

 

[Seawytch]

Seriously- that is a horribly flawed argument.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Oh- by the way- the biggest issue for inheritance is not with children- it is with spouses.

Which was the issue behind Windsor

Doesnt matter.
Most straight couples who marry have children
Most gay couples who marry do not have children.
That is simply fact and no amount of wriggling will change it.

And is irrelevant - both to the argument- and to the post I was responding to.

Your reasoning would be the basis of discriminating against infertile couples- since most straight couples can have children.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Rights are not enforced simply because a group is more likely to have children than another group.

Don't believe me?

The Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners in prison have the right to marry- and most prisoners in prison to do not have children while in prison.

You're just not getting this.
It is not a test whether two people can marry as to whether they can produce children. It is a statment of fact that generally and characteristically heterosexual people who marry do in fact produce children. Thus the state has an interest in fostering that relationship. Thus the state awards benefits for that relationship.
Generally and characteristically gay people do not produce chidlren. Ergo the state has no reason to favor that relationship.

Illogical on its face. Since no infertile or childless by choice couple is prevented from civilly marrying, your "argument" fails.

Plus, gays DO have children, also rendering your "argument" (for lack of a better description) moot.

Try reading the argument again.
I realize in your binary world things are either forbidden or totally without regulation but in the real world that's not how it is.

Why would I re read your failed argument?

It's not logical. No state or locality prevents civil marriage to infertile or childless by choice couples.

You're free to keep making your silly argument, but that just makes you look sillier.

 

[Seawytch]

Seriously- that is a horribly flawed argument.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Oh- by the way- the biggest issue for inheritance is not with children- it is with spouses.

Which was the issue behind Windsor

Doesnt matter.
Most straight couples who marry have children
Most gay couples who marry do not have children.
That is simply fact and no amount of wriggling will change it.

And is irrelevant - both to the argument- and to the post I was responding to.

Your reasoning would be the basis of discriminating against infertile couples- since most straight couples can have children.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Rights are not enforced simply because a group is more likely to have children than another group.

Don't believe me?

The Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners in prison have the right to marry- and most prisoners in prison to do not have children while in prison.

You're just not getting this.
It is not a test whether two people can marry as to whether they can produce children. It is a statment of fact that generally and characteristically heterosexual people who marry do in fact produce children. Thus the state has an interest in fostering that relationship. Thus the state awards benefits for that relationship.
Generally and characteristically gay people do not produce chidlren. Ergo the state has no reason to favor that relationship.

Illogical on its face. Since no infertile or childless by choice couple is prevented from civilly marrying, your "argument" fails.

Plus, gays DO have children, also rendering your "argument" (for lack of a better description) moot.

Try reading the argument again.
I realize in your binary world things are either forbidden or totally without regulation but in the real world that's not how it is.

Why would I re read your failed argument?

It's not logical. No state or locality prevents civil marriage to infertile or childless by choice couples.

You're free to keep making your silly argument, but that just makes you look sillier.

 

[Seawytch]

None of that is a surprise to me.

SUrely.
But none of it invalidates my argument, an argument you cannot refute because you cannot understand it.

I cannot understand that which is nonsensical.

See. It appears like nonsense to you. Much the same as if someone were discoursing on physics in Urdu. The fact that you do not understand it does not mean it is without worth. Rather it is testament to your ignorance and stupidiity.

It appears to be nonsense to me- because it is nonsense.

I can no more understand it than I can a cow trying to lecture me on physics....

No, you think it's nonsense because you cannot understand it. But for smart people it makes perfect sense.

No smart person is making that argument. Anti gay bigots are making it (and it has failed), but not smart people.

 

[The Rabbi]

See. It appears like nonsense to you. Much the same as if someone were discoursing on physics in Urdu. The fact that you do not understand it does not mean it is without worth. Rather it is testament to your ignorance and stupidiity.

It appears to be nonsense to me- because it is nonsense.

I can no more understand it than I can a cow trying to lecture me on physics....

No, you think it's nonsense because you cannot understand it. But for smart people it makes perfect sense.

I have yet to see any smart person make that argument.

Of course you havent seen it. Hell, youi dont even know what that argument is.

I have seen lots of smart people make arguments here on USMB.

Haven't seen one make your argument.

Since you dont understand what my argument is your statement is meaningless.

 

[The Rabbi]

SUrely.
But none of it invalidates my argument, an argument you cannot refute because you cannot understand it.

I cannot understand that which is nonsensical.

See. It appears like nonsense to you. Much the same as if someone were discoursing on physics in Urdu. The fact that you do not understand it does not mean it is without worth. Rather it is testament to your ignorance and stupidiity.

It appears to be nonsense to me- because it is nonsense.

I can no more understand it than I can a cow trying to lecture me on physics....

No, you think it's nonsense because you cannot understand it. But for smart people it makes perfect sense.

No smart person is making that argument. Anti gay bigots are making it (and it has failed), but not smart people.

Since you dont understand the argument how would you know? "Smart"does not equal "agrees with me" you know.