Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- Thread starter
- #381
Here's what I want you to answer to Syriusly: Remember? Or did you already forget?...lol..
So your contention is that the children of gay partnerships and "the suffering they will encounter" legitimizes promoting legal gay marriage, polygamy and other arrangements (see next paragraph) alongside so-called "gay marriage"?
Fine, what about children of single moms? There are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more of them than of gay couples. We must first extend to them the rights to be married. Remember (see below) numbers are just as arbitrary in marriage as male/female, according to logic and Judge Sutton... One person should be able to be married to themself in order to extend the benefits of marriage to the 10s of million so fchildren of single moms that are currently being deprived through no fault of their own..
And what about gay marriages with respect to children's rights, since that seems to be your angle of the day...? A state incentivizing gay marriages is the same as a state incentivizing the lack of one of the child[ren]'s blood parents 100% of the time. So on that grounds alone a single mom could sue the state for equality in rights to marry themself. What makes one househould missing one of the blood parents more special than another? Remember, there are at least millions of children whose single parents work hard enough and bring in enough income to take care of them, or are independently wealthy. Would you deny them marriage benefits too, based on some personal moral-relativist perspective that that "just ain't right"?
And while we are arguing what is best for children, what a terrible message to tell children that "your gender doesn't matter" if they happen to be the opposite gender of the gay "parents"..
Remember, the 10s of millions of children currently deprived of the benefits of marriage are suffering too. By the blind logic of your argment, unless you're going to cite "morals and longstanding tradition", single parents may marry themselves in order to extend all the benefits of marriage to currently-deprived children.
Again, Judge Sutton's sharp logic from the recent Decision from the 6th..
Here: (page 30) 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases
"Consider also the number of people eligible to marry. As late as the eighteenth century, “[t]he predominance of monogamy was by no means a foregone conclusion,” and “[m]ost of the peoples and cultures around the globe” had adopted a different system. Nancy F. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation 9 (2000). Over time, American officials wove monogamy into marriage’s fabric. Beginning in the nineteenth century, the federal government “encouraged or forced” Native Americans to adopt the policy, and in 1878 the Supreme Court upheld a federal antibigamy law. Id. at 26; see Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878). The Court has never taken this topic under its wing. And if it did, how would the constitutional, as opposed to policy, arguments in favor of same-sex marriage not apply to plural marriages?...
..(pages 22-23)
... Consider how plaintiffs’ love-and-commitment definition of marriage would fare under their own rational basis test. Their definition does too much because it fails to account for the reality that no State in the country requires couples, whether gay or straight, to be in love. Their definition does too little because it fails to account for plural marriages, where there is no reason to think that three or four adults, whether gay, bisexual, or straight, lack the capacity to share love, affection, and commitment, or for that matter lack the capacity to be capable (and more plentiful) parents to boot. If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage. Plaintiffs have no answer to the point. What they might say they cannot: They might say that tradition or community mores provide a rational basis for States to stand by the monogamy definition of marriage, but they cannot say that because that is exactly what they claim is illegitimate about the States’ male-female definition of marriage. The predicament does not end there. No State is free of marriage policies that go too far in some directions and not far enough in others, making all of them vulnerable—if the claimants’ theory of rational basis review prevails. "
What about the children indeed. Let's discuss that...
So your contention is that the children of gay partnerships and "the suffering they will encounter" legitimizes promoting legal gay marriage, polygamy and other arrangements (see next paragraph) alongside so-called "gay marriage"?
Fine, what about children of single moms? There are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more of them than of gay couples. We must first extend to them the rights to be married. Remember (see below) numbers are just as arbitrary in marriage as male/female, according to logic and Judge Sutton... One person should be able to be married to themself in order to extend the benefits of marriage to the 10s of million so fchildren of single moms that are currently being deprived through no fault of their own..
And what about gay marriages with respect to children's rights, since that seems to be your angle of the day...? A state incentivizing gay marriages is the same as a state incentivizing the lack of one of the child[ren]'s blood parents 100% of the time. So on that grounds alone a single mom could sue the state for equality in rights to marry themself. What makes one househould missing one of the blood parents more special than another? Remember, there are at least millions of children whose single parents work hard enough and bring in enough income to take care of them, or are independently wealthy. Would you deny them marriage benefits too, based on some personal moral-relativist perspective that that "just ain't right"?
And while we are arguing what is best for children, what a terrible message to tell children that "your gender doesn't matter" if they happen to be the opposite gender of the gay "parents"..
Did the "CQR-Method" APA schills consider for a moment that instead of having "gender identity disorder", the boy may have had instead "my gender doesn't matter" disorder?
Remember, the 10s of millions of children currently deprived of the benefits of marriage are suffering too. By the blind logic of your argment, unless you're going to cite "morals and longstanding tradition", single parents may marry themselves in order to extend all the benefits of marriage to currently-deprived children.
Again, Judge Sutton's sharp logic from the recent Decision from the 6th..
Here: (page 30) 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases
"Consider also the number of people eligible to marry. As late as the eighteenth century, “[t]he predominance of monogamy was by no means a foregone conclusion,” and “[m]ost of the peoples and cultures around the globe” had adopted a different system. Nancy F. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation 9 (2000). Over time, American officials wove monogamy into marriage’s fabric. Beginning in the nineteenth century, the federal government “encouraged or forced” Native Americans to adopt the policy, and in 1878 the Supreme Court upheld a federal antibigamy law. Id. at 26; see Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878). The Court has never taken this topic under its wing. And if it did, how would the constitutional, as opposed to policy, arguments in favor of same-sex marriage not apply to plural marriages?...
..(pages 22-23)
... Consider how plaintiffs’ love-and-commitment definition of marriage would fare under their own rational basis test. Their definition does too much because it fails to account for the reality that no State in the country requires couples, whether gay or straight, to be in love. Their definition does too little because it fails to account for plural marriages, where there is no reason to think that three or four adults, whether gay, bisexual, or straight, lack the capacity to share love, affection, and commitment, or for that matter lack the capacity to be capable (and more plentiful) parents to boot. If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage. Plaintiffs have no answer to the point. What they might say they cannot: They might say that tradition or community mores provide a rational basis for States to stand by the monogamy definition of marriage, but they cannot say that because that is exactly what they claim is illegitimate about the States’ male-female definition of marriage. The predicament does not end there. No State is free of marriage policies that go too far in some directions and not far enough in others, making all of them vulnerable—if the claimants’ theory of rational basis review prevails. "
