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

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Parenting, genetic, or adoptive, has nothing to with marriage equality, dork.

 

[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.

Parenting, genetic, or adoptive, has nothing to with marriage equality, dork.

By the way

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says same-sex marriages can go ahead in Kansas.

The court on Wednesday denied the state's request to prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying while Kansas fights the issue in court.

A federal district judge last week blocked the state from enforcing its ban, saying it was in keeping with an earlier ruling by the federal appeals court that oversees Kansas that struck down bans in Oklahoma and Utah.

The judge's ruling was supposed to go into effect Tuesday, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor (SOHN'-ya soh-toh-my-YOR') temporarily put it on hold while the high court reviewed the case.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have sided with the state.

Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That means seven votes side with marriage equality in KS. . . . hmmm.

 

[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.

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.

The laws don't agree with your opinion since no one has ever been denied a civil marriage license for a failure or unwillingness to procreate. Argument fail.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat is always argument fail when he is acting weird, which is most of the time, such as this thread

 

[Skylar]

We'll see if the 6th court's full quorum upholds the same ruling.

 

[Skylar]

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.

If the sharing of genes is the purpose of marriage, why then is no straight couple forbidden from marrying if they can't share genes? Simple: because neither procreation nor the ability to procreate is a requirement of marriage. Not in any State.

Why then would we apply a standard to gays that applies to NO ONE, and then exempt straights from the same standard?

 

[Skylar]

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.

Parenting, genetic, or adoptive, has nothing to with marriage equality, dork.

By the way

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says same-sex marriages can go ahead in Kansas.

The court on Wednesday denied the state's request to prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying while Kansas fights the issue in court.

A federal district judge last week blocked the state from enforcing its ban, saying it was in keeping with an earlier ruling by the federal appeals court that oversees Kansas that struck down bans in Oklahoma and Utah.

The judge's ruling was supposed to go into effect Tuesday, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor (SOHN'-ya soh-toh-my-YOR') temporarily put it on hold while the high court reviewed the case.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have sided with the state.

Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

But....but didn't Silo tell us that the judges didn't want Gay marriage, and that the Stays were their expression of their opposition to gay marriage and their support for the bans?

I'm so confused. Its almost like Silo doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about.

 

[Skylar]

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.

How then is that purpose served with sterile couples getting married? Or couples who never get married? If the inability to procreate is a valid basis for exclusion from marriage.....

....why then is this standard only applied to gays? Wouldn't that be an equal protection violation? If the standard were valid, it would have to be applied to ANY couple that couldn't procreate. Not just the gay ones.

 

[Skylar]

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.

How then is that purpose served with sterile couples getting married? Or couples who never get married? If the inability to procreate is a valid basis for exclusion from marriage.....

....why then is this standard only applied to gays? Wouldn't that be an equal protection violation? If the standard were valid, it would have to be applied to ANY couple that couldn't procreate. Not just the gay ones.

 

[Silhouette]

Parenting, genetic, or adoptive, has nothing to with marriage equality, dork.

So-called "marriage equality" [for gays but not polygamists or single people to marry themselves] is not about the state choosing which arrangement is best to benefit children. That would be both blood parents. Not only one, 100% of the time but not the other. Just as with single parents.

Childless couples and those who adopt who are male/female do not disrupt the incentivized structure which is the ONLY one that can produce children with both blood parents in the home accessible to the child[ren]. That's in the state's best interest. And so it shall be up to the states whether or not they want to incentivize homes where children are raised 100% of the time without the complimentary or exemplary gender "as parent"...

 

[Skylar]

So-called "marriage equality" [for gays but not polygamists or single people to marry themselves] is not about the state choosing which arrangement is best to benefit children. That would be both blood parents. Not only one, 100% of the time but not the other. Just as with single parents.

Childless couples and those who adopt who are male/female do not disrupt the incentivized structure which is the ONLY one that can produce children with both blood parents in the home accessible to the child[ren].

Why not? You declare it...but you don't explain why. Sterile couples and those who adopt receive all the benefits but serve none of the 'purpose'. Just like gays, who can also adopt. And in many cases father or bear their own children. So if we're going to exclude someone based on their failure to meet the 'purpose' why do we arbitrarily exempt all straights from this standard and apply it only to gays?

A standard which NO ONE is held to. No one, in any State, is denied the right to marry because they can't procreate or won't procreate. So why would we unequally apply a non-existent standard only to gays?

It simply makes no sense.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The laws don't agree with your opinion since no one has ever been denied a civil marriage license for a failure or unwillingness to procreate. Argument fail.

You just demonstrated your inability to commit logic. No one ever had their driver's license revoked for not using it. According to you that means the state doesn't issue drivers license to insure safe driving.

 

[bripat9643]

bripat is always argument fail when he is acting weird, which is most of the time, such as this thread

The orderlies at the home for people with memory issues are looking for you, Fakey.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

The laws don't agree with your opinion since no one has ever been denied a civil marriage license for a failure or unwillingness to procreate. Argument fail.

You just demonstrated your inability to commit logic. No one ever had their driver's license revoked for not using it. According to you that means the state doesn't issue drivers license to insure safe driving.

Marriage isn't a driver's license. No one with an inability or unwillingness to have children is denied one. People like convicted felons with no chance of ever having children are not denied one. 80 year olds beyond the childbearing stage are not denied one. You want to apply a standard to gays that is not applied to any other couple.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The antis fail the parenting, genetic, modeling criteria that they themselves introduced.

 

[Silhouette]

Why not? You declare it...but you don't explain why. Sterile couples and those who adopt receive all the benefits but serve none of the 'purpose'. Just like gays, who can also adopt. And in many cases father or bear their own children. So if we're going to exclude someone based on their failure to meet the 'purpose' why do we arbitrarily exempt all straights from this standard and apply it only to gays?

A standard which NO ONE is held to. No one, in any State, is denied the right to marry because they can't procreate or won't procreate. So why would we unequally apply a non-existent standard only to gays?

It simply makes no sense.

Sterile couples do serve a purpose. They don't disrupt the male/female structure of what a state chooses to identify as "married" for the sake of the best welbeing for any children produced. Gay couples do disrupt that and guarantee that 100% of the time, the "parents" in the home will fail to be one of blood relation or one opposite gender vital to a child's well rounded upbringing. It's like incentivizing single parents where one vital parent is missing 100% of the time. Will you now advocate that single mothers can marry themselves so their children can enjoy the benefits of marriage? No? Do you hate their children that much?

This is about future children and what is best for them. Not today's children which are a small, tiny minority compared to all those that will follow once any precedent is set. It's like seeing a rolling snowball and digging a fork in its path where it will start down another ravine completely different from the one before. It will pick up speed in that new direction. And we'd best explore where that new direction is first before we commit untold generations after ourselves to that fate.

The APA will be of no help of course. CQR there has seen to that. Any attempts to explore that new direction on behalf of children in the future will be "audited"..dontcha know... Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren t to Blame They Rely on Science .. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Syriusly]

Childless couples and those who adopt who are male/female do not disrupt the incentivized structure which is the ONLY one that can produce children with both blood parents in the home accessible to the child[ren]. .

If a childless couples does not disrupt the 'incentivized structure'.......why would a childless couple that is gay disrupt the 'incentivized structure'.

In reality what you are proposing is that if you take two childless couples- one gay and one straight- you want the state to deny to the gay couple what they give to the straight couple.

Which is a clear violation of Equal Treatment under the law.

 

[Syriusly]

Why not? You declare it...but you don't explain why. Sterile couples and those who adopt receive all the benefits but serve none of the 'purpose'. Just like gays, who can also adopt. And in many cases father or bear their own children. So if we're going to exclude someone based on their failure to meet the 'purpose' why do we arbitrarily exempt all straights from this standard and apply it only to gays?

A standard which NO ONE is held to. No one, in any State, is denied the right to marry because they can't procreate or won't procreate. So why would we unequally apply a non-existent standard only to gays?

It simply makes no sense.

Sterile couples do serve a purpose.

What purpose? What is the purpose of the State to 'incentivize' a sterile straight couple to marry- but not to 'incentivize a sterile gay couple to marry?

 

[Silhouette]

Duplicate. Screw the editing on this site!