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

[Seawytch]

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

Homosexual couples don't have children.

And our children, the children of my same sex partner and I, laughed out loud at the silly man on the internet.

So those children each have genes from both of you?

Seriously?

What's serious is how confused you are regarding the difference between parenting and procreating.

You said the children of you and your partner. That means offspring. There are no such children.

Apparently you believe procreating has nothing to do with parenting.

We are their parents legally and emotionally. How they they came to be is procreation which is different than parenting...

Or are you dismissing millions of adoptive parents?

 

[Syriusly]

There are no children, Sil, is the point. That is over for you; you will be called out every time.

Now it is time for you come to tell us ALL why this is so personal for you.

Look at my last post, the little pair of hands gripping the rail right above the ass-up "do me" gay guy spread eagle in the street (just in front of the smiling lesbians holding signs "Drill Ass, Not Gas").

Follow the heel up from the guy's tennis shoe straight up the rail to the little pair of hands compared to the adult-sized ones around them.

Are you suggesting there were no (zero) children attending or watching this gay pride parade held on a main thoroughfare in broad daylight that day?

Now if we want to see 'ass-up'- here is 'ass-up'- like I said- what is the difference between your photo and this photo other than the man in your photo has his hands visibly on the ground.?

 

[bripat9643]

Homosexual couples don't have children.

And our children, the children of my same sex partner and I, laughed out loud at the silly man on the internet.

So those children each have genes from both of you?

Seriously?

What's serious is how confused you are regarding the difference between parenting and procreating.

You said the children of you and your partner. That means offspring. There are no such children.

Apparently you believe procreating has nothing to do with parenting.

We are their parents legally and emotionally. How they they came to be is procreation which is different than parenting...

Or are you dismissing millions of adoptive parents?

They are not "your children" genetically, and that's the whole point of what I said. Gay couples can't have children, they can only have custody of children.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Homosexual couples don't have children.

And our children, the children of my same sex partner and I, laughed out loud at the silly man on the internet.

So those children each have genes from both of you?

Seriously?

What's serious is how confused you are regarding the difference between parenting and procreating.

You said the children of you and your partner. That means offspring. There are no such children.

Apparently you believe procreating has nothing to do with parenting.

Either you are an idiot- or you are liar.

Whether a couple has children because they exchanged genetic material, or because they borrowed genetic material from another person or adopted- the children are still their children.

Just like Nicole Kidman, and Al Roker and Brad Pitt and Bob Hope and George Burns are/were all 'real' parents- even though their children didn't carry their genes

 

[Syriusly]

And our children, the children of my same sex partner and I, laughed out loud at the silly man on the internet.

So those children each have genes from both of you?

Seriously?

What's serious is how confused you are regarding the difference between parenting and procreating.

You said the children of you and your partner. That means offspring. There are no such children.

Apparently you believe procreating has nothing to do with parenting.

We are their parents legally and emotionally. How they they came to be is procreation which is different than parenting...

Or are you dismissing millions of adoptive parents?

They are not "your children" genetically, and that's the whole point of what I said. Gay couples can't have children, they can only have custody of children.

So if a man and a woman are married, and he is sterile, and they use a sperm donor- you don't think that they can 'have children'- but only have custody of children?

And of course the children of Bob Hope I am sure will be disappointed that Dad was only their custodian......

 

[bripat9643]

Homosexual couples don't have children.

And our children, the children of my same sex partner and I, laughed out loud at the silly man on the internet.

So those children each have genes from both of you?

Seriously?

What's serious is how confused you are regarding the difference between parenting and procreating.

You said the children of you and your partner. That means offspring. There are no such children.

Apparently you believe procreating has nothing to do with parenting.

Either you are an idiot- or you are liar.

Whether a couple has children because they exchanged genetic material, or because they borrowed genetic material from another person or adopted- the children are still their children.

Just like Nicole Kidman, and Al Roker and Brad Pitt and Bob Hope and George Burns are/were all 'real' parents- even though their children didn't carry their genes

Whether they are children isn't the point (which is utterly idiotic, BTW). They point is whether they share your genes. That's what makes a family biologically - all the members have genes in common. That isn't true in the case of so-called "gay parents." That's the point of marriage. It provides a legal framework for a set of people who are genetically related.

 

[bripat9643]

So those children each have genes from both of you?

Seriously?

What's serious is how confused you are regarding the difference between parenting and procreating.

You said the children of you and your partner. That means offspring. There are no such children.

Apparently you believe procreating has nothing to do with parenting.

We are their parents legally and emotionally. How they they came to be is procreation which is different than parenting...

Or are you dismissing millions of adoptive parents?

They are not "your children" genetically, and that's the whole point of what I said. Gay couples can't have children, they can only have custody of children.

So if a man and a woman are married, and he is sterile, and they use a sperm donor- you don't think that they can 'have children'- but only have custody of children?

And of course the children of Bob Hope I am sure will be disappointed that Dad was only their custodian......

That's right. The couple are not having a child. One of them may be having a child, but the couple isn't. Someone else is the biological parent of the child, not both members of the couple.

 

[Seawytch]

And our children, the children of my same sex partner and I, laughed out loud at the silly man on the internet.

So those children each have genes from both of you?

Seriously?

What's serious is how confused you are regarding the difference between parenting and procreating.

You said the children of you and your partner. That means offspring. There are no such children.

Apparently you believe procreating has nothing to do with parenting.

We are their parents legally and emotionally. How they they came to be is procreation which is different than parenting...

Or are you dismissing millions of adoptive parents?

They are not "your children" genetically, and that's the whole point of what I said. Gay couples can't have children, they can only have custody of children.

Genetics have nothing to do with parenting unless you are planning on dismissing millions of adoptive parents, not to mention hundreds of thousands of infertile couples that use AI or IVF. Are you?

I bore five children, two of which are my genetic material. With our two, my same sex partner and I are their parents equally.

 

[Seawytch]

What's serious is how confused you are regarding the difference between parenting and procreating.

You said the children of you and your partner. That means offspring. There are no such children.

Apparently you believe procreating has nothing to do with parenting.

We are their parents legally and emotionally. How they they came to be is procreation which is different than parenting...

Or are you dismissing millions of adoptive parents?

They are not "your children" genetically, and that's the whole point of what I said. Gay couples can't have children, they can only have custody of children.

So if a man and a woman are married, and he is sterile, and they use a sperm donor- you don't think that they can 'have children'- but only have custody of children?

And of course the children of Bob Hope I am sure will be disappointed that Dad was only their custodian......

That's right. The couple are not having a child. One of them may be having a child, but the couple isn't. Someone else is the biological parent of the child, not both members of the couple.

Which is different than parenting. Procreation and parenting are not the same.

 

[Seawytch]

And our children, the children of my same sex partner and I, laughed out loud at the silly man on the internet.

So those children each have genes from both of you?

Seriously?

What's serious is how confused you are regarding the difference between parenting and procreating.

You said the children of you and your partner. That means offspring. There are no such children.

Apparently you believe procreating has nothing to do with parenting.

Either you are an idiot- or you are liar.

Whether a couple has children because they exchanged genetic material, or because they borrowed genetic material from another person or adopted- the children are still their children.

Just like Nicole Kidman, and Al Roker and Brad Pitt and Bob Hope and George Burns are/were all 'real' parents- even though their children didn't carry their genes

Whether they are children isn't the point (which is utterly idiotic, BTW). They point is whether they share your genes. That's what makes a family biologically - all the members have genes in common. That isn't true in the case of so-called "gay parents." That's the point of marriage. It provides a legal framework for a set of people who are genetically related.

Hear that adopted kids?

 

[Syriusly]

And our children, the children of my same sex partner and I, laughed out loud at the silly man on the internet.

So those children each have genes from both of you?

Seriously?

What's serious is how confused you are regarding the difference between parenting and procreating.

You said the children of you and your partner. That means offspring. There are no such children.

Apparently you believe procreating has nothing to do with parenting.

Either you are an idiot- or you are liar.

Whether a couple has children because they exchanged genetic material, or because they borrowed genetic material from another person or adopted- the children are still their children.

Just like Nicole Kidman, and Al Roker and Brad Pitt and Bob Hope and George Burns are/were all 'real' parents- even though their children didn't carry their genes

Whether they are children isn't the point (which is utterly idiotic, BTW). They point is whether they share your genes. That's what makes a family biologically - all the members have genes in common. That isn't true in the case of so-called "gay parents." That's the point of marriage. It provides a legal framework for a set of people who are genetically related.

So

So these kids didn't call Bob Hope 'dad' or 'father'?

And you think that Bob Hope and his wife had no reason to get married- since their children didn't share their genetic material?

 

[bripat9643]

So those children each have genes from both of you?

Seriously?

What's serious is how confused you are regarding the difference between parenting and procreating.

You said the children of you and your partner. That means offspring. There are no such children.

Apparently you believe procreating has nothing to do with parenting.

Either you are an idiot- or you are liar.

Whether a couple has children because they exchanged genetic material, or because they borrowed genetic material from another person or adopted- the children are still their children.

Just like Nicole Kidman, and Al Roker and Brad Pitt and Bob Hope and George Burns are/were all 'real' parents- even though their children didn't carry their genes

Whether they are children isn't the point (which is utterly idiotic, BTW). They point is whether they share your genes. That's what makes a family biologically - all the members have genes in common. That isn't true in the case of so-called "gay parents." That's the point of marriage. It provides a legal framework for a set of people who are genetically related.

Hear that adopted kids?

The sharing of genes is one of the main reason we have marriage. It allows questions of inheritance and gaurdianship to be settled without a lot of legal wrangling. It makes sure that a person's financial assets are passed on to his progeny. That's why the laws were created in the first place.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat is genuinely a dork

this is an argument about parenting and marriage, not genes

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is still hiding from me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat is genuinely a dork

this is an argument about parenting and marriage, not genes

parenting is done by parents, both those genetic and those non-genetic, bripat

 

[Syriusly]

What's serious is how confused you are regarding the difference between parenting and procreating.

You said the children of you and your partner. That means offspring. There are no such children.

Apparently you believe procreating has nothing to do with parenting.

Either you are an idiot- or you are liar.

Whether a couple has children because they exchanged genetic material, or because they borrowed genetic material from another person or adopted- the children are still their children.

Just like Nicole Kidman, and Al Roker and Brad Pitt and Bob Hope and George Burns are/were all 'real' parents- even though their children didn't carry their genes

Whether they are children isn't the point (which is utterly idiotic, BTW). They point is whether they share your genes. That's what makes a family biologically - all the members have genes in common. That isn't true in the case of so-called "gay parents." That's the point of marriage. It provides a legal framework for a set of people who are genetically related.

Hear that adopted kids?

The sharing of genes is one of the main reason we have marriage. It allows questions of inheritance and gaurdianship to be settled without a lot of legal wrangling. It makes sure that a person's financial assets are passed on to his progeny. That's why the laws were created in the first place.

And so you think adopted kids are not 'really' the children of those strangers that adopted them.

And that woman- whose husband is sterile and used a sperm donor to get pregnant- her kids can just call her 'custodian'.

 

[bripat9643]

bripat is genuinely a dork

this is an argument about parenting and marriage, not genes

Oh right, the issue of parenting has nothing to do with genetics.

You have to be the worlds biggest ignoramus, Fakey.

 

[Syriusly]

bripat is genuinely a dork

this is an argument about parenting and marriage, not genes

Oh right, the issue of parenting has nothing to do with genetics.

You have to be the worlds biggest ignoramus, Fakey.

And it doesn't.

Matter of fact, if a woman has an affair, and the resulting child is not that of her husband, that child will be parented by her husband- even though he had nothing to do with the genetics.

Parenting does not equal genetics.

 

[Silhouette]

parenting is done by parents, both those genetic and those non-genetic, bripat

And what benefit to the state or children in it is incentivizing a marriage where one of the children's blood parents will be missing 100% of the time? The purpose of marriage was to incentivize blood parents to stay together to raise their blood children. Other childless male/female marriages do not defy the incentive-arrangement. But gay marriages do defy that. Always. 100% of the time.

No state should be forced to encourage this. Marriage is a state-encouraged parenting arrangement. That is the sole interest of the state in marriage; but it is a vital and potent interest.. As far as the states are concerned, marriage is by, for and about children in it. The rest of it they could give a fig about.

 

[Syriusly]

parenting is done by parents, both those genetic and those non-genetic, bripat

And what benefit to the state or children in it is incentivizing a marriage where one of the children's blood parents will be missing 100% of the time? The purpose of marriage was to incentivize blood parents to stay together to raise their blood children.

So no marriage to parents who divorce and want to remarry someone else?
No marriage to sterile couples?
No marriage for couples too old to have children?

Or do they get the same 'incentivizing' even though they are not having- and raising children with both of their genes- as long as they aren't gay.