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

[Skylar]

Exactly- it is just marriage- now more equal than before.

Marriage is about children first, adults second. How is gay marriage "more equal" for children?

If marriage was about children first- then you would be insisting on 'gay marriage' so that their children would have the benefits of marriage.

But marriage is not about children first- and you knew that.

Gay couples don't have children, so that argument is a non sequitur.

Not really. As there are all sorts of gay couples raising kids. Some adopted. Some the biological child of one partner. Some the other. Just like many straight folks. Why would the relationship these children have with their parents be a 'non-sequitur'? Wouldn't these children benefit from their parents being married?

 

[Skylar]

That's easily proven false. All you arguments have been proven false, but that won't stop you from using them over and over and over again.

If its gay marriage being 'real marriage' is easily proven false....then prove it.

In 32 of 50 States, same sex marriage is a real, legally valid, and protected as straight marriage. If you believe otherwise, make your case.

 

[Skylar]

The color of your skin isn't an obstacle to procreation or raising well adjusted children. A "couple" with only one kind of genitalia is.

Procreating isn't a requirement of marriage. As no couple in any State is required to have children or be able to have children in order to be married. Making it an irrelevant criteria in determining who can and can't enter into a legally recognized marriage.

Why then would we make up a standard that doesn't exist, exclude all straight people from it, and then apply it to gays exclusively? Obviously we wouldn't.

As for 'raising well adjusted children', you're offering us baseless speculation as evidence. Which it obviously isn't.

 

[Skylar]

The color of your skin isn't an obstacle to procreation or raising well adjusted children. A "couple" with only one kind of genitalia is.

The two aren't even in the same ballpark. A bi-racial couple have a home where the children have access to both their blood parents...and those protective/nurturing instincts. A gay couple can never provide that for a child. 100% of the time, a gay household provides a lack of one blood parent to any children who find themselves in that situation..

No more so than any couple that adopts. Or had artificial insemination using a donor egg or sperm. Or if there is a mixed marriage from divorce. Almost every single instance of a child being denied 'both blood parents' is with straight couples. And you don't care....because you know your fantasy that this 'harms' children is blithering nonsense.

Why would we deny gays the right to marry based on a situation that straights have demonstrated DOESN'T result in any particular harm to children?

There is no reason. Adoption has been around for millennium....and none of the 'dire consequences' you made up ever happened. You're offering us wild speculation backed by absolutely nothing, contradicted by thousands of years of human history, and you don't even believe the argument you've made.

Laughing...we're not stripping gays of their right to marry over such a nonsense claim.

 

[The Rabbi]

You wrote gays were not allowed to marry. That is false.

Then same sex marriage has always been legal?

Yes. Show me one place where anyone was ever prosecuted for having a gay wedding.

Then what, pray tell, is all the hub bub about? If same sex marriage has always been legal, what are conservatives fighting? Why did they submit appeals to say, Prop 8?

You fellas may want to compare your notes. Because if your claims are valid and gay marriage has always been legal, then they just wasted tons and tons of money on lawyers opposing gay marriage.

We are fighting extending state benefits to couples whose relationship generally and characteristically does nothing to benefit the state.
Doubtless that argument s lost on you.

 

[The Rabbi]

The color of your skin isn't an obstacle to procreation or raising well adjusted children. A "couple" with only one kind of genitalia is.

Procreating isn't a requirement of marriage. As no couple in any State is required to have children or be able to have children in order to be married. Making it an irrelevant criteria in determining who can and can't enter into a legally recognized marriage.

Why then would we make up a standard that doesn't exist, exclude all straight people from it, and then apply it to gays exclusively? Obviously we wouldn't.

As for 'raising well adjusted children', you're offering us baseless speculation as evidence. Which it obviously isn't.

Red herring. No one says procreation ought to be a requirement. The fact is that generally and characteristically heterosexual couples will produce and raise children. The law is geared to what generally and characteristically happens.

 

[The Rabbi]

Exactly- it is just marriage- now more equal than before.

Marriage is about children first, adults second. How is gay marriage "more equal" for children?

If marriage was about children first- then you would be insisting on 'gay marriage' so that their children would have the benefits of marriage.

But marriage is not about children first- and you knew that.

Gay couples don't have children, so that argument is a non sequitur.

Not really. As there are all sorts of gay couples raising kids. Some adopted. Some the biological child of one partner. Some the other. Just like many straight folks. Why would the relationship these children have with their parents be a 'non-sequitur'? Wouldn't these children benefit from their parents being married?

There are moms and grandmas raising kids too. Maybe we should allow them to get married?

 

[Skylar]

You wrote gays were not allowed to marry. That is false.

Then same sex marriage has always been legal?

Yes. Show me one place where anyone was ever prosecuted for having a gay wedding.

Then what, pray tell, is all the hub bub about? If same sex marriage has always been legal, what are conservatives fighting? Why did they submit appeals to say, Prop 8?

You fellas may want to compare your notes. Because if your claims are valid and gay marriage has always been legal, then they just wasted tons and tons of money on lawyers opposing gay marriage.

We are fighting extending state benefits to couples whose relationship generally and characteristically does nothing to benefit the state.
Doubtless that argument s lost on you.

And how does the relationships of the infertile or the childless 'benefit the state'? And remember, millions of them are married with benefits extended.

If there's room for millions upon millions of exceptions for straights, then there's room for gays and lesbians to add a few million more.

 

[Skylar]

The color of your skin isn't an obstacle to procreation or raising well adjusted children. A "couple" with only one kind of genitalia is.

Procreating isn't a requirement of marriage. As no couple in any State is required to have children or be able to have children in order to be married. Making it an irrelevant criteria in determining who can and can't enter into a legally recognized marriage.

Why then would we make up a standard that doesn't exist, exclude all straight people from it, and then apply it to gays exclusively? Obviously we wouldn't.

As for 'raising well adjusted children', you're offering us baseless speculation as evidence. Which it obviously isn't.

Red herring. No one says procreation ought to be a requirement. The fact is that generally and characteristically heterosexual couples will produce and raise children. The law is geared to what generally and characteristically happens.

With procreation off the table, what 'value to the state' are you referring to that straight couples bring to the table that gay couples can't?

Paint, meet floor. Rabbi, meet corner.

Smiling....enjoy!

 

[Skylar]

Exactly- it is just marriage- now more equal than before.

Marriage is about children first, adults second. How is gay marriage "more equal" for children?

If marriage was about children first- then you would be insisting on 'gay marriage' so that their children would have the benefits of marriage.

But marriage is not about children first- and you knew that.

Gay couples don't have children, so that argument is a non sequitur.

Not really. As there are all sorts of gay couples raising kids. Some adopted. Some the biological child of one partner. Some the other. Just like many straight folks. Why would the relationship these children have with their parents be a 'non-sequitur'? Wouldn't these children benefit from their parents being married?

There are moms and grandmas raising kids too. Maybe we should allow them to get married?

Wouldn't the children of gays and lesbians benefit from their parents being married? Kennedy certainly thinks so.

 

[Silhouette]

Not really. As there are all sorts of gay couples raising kids. Some adopted. Some the biological child of one partner. Some the other. Just like many straight folks. Why would the relationship these children have with their parents be a 'non-sequitur'? Wouldn't these children benefit from their parents being married?

That's not the question of gay marriage. The question of gay marriage is future children into untold generations through time. And should states be forced to incentivize a "marriage" children find themselves in that will be guaranteed to be missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time?

 

[Skylar]

Not really. As there are all sorts of gay couples raising kids. Some adopted. Some the biological child of one partner. Some the other. Just like many straight folks. Why would the relationship these children have with their parents be a 'non-sequitur'? Wouldn't these children benefit from their parents being married?

That's not the question of gay marriage.

Why wouldn't it be? From your stark and bizarre avoidance of the question, it seems you know the answer as well as Kennedy does.

Of course it would benefit these children. But it wouldn't benefit your argument. So you completely ignore them.

Once again, your empty lip service to 'children' is demonstrated as little more as than a rhetorical saddle to ride. The moment a given child doesn't let you bash gays, you toss them aside like so much garbage.

The question of gay marriage is future children into untold generations through time. And should states be forced to incentivize a "marriage" children find themselves in that will be guaranteed to be missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time?

Its no more a consequence than any couple that adopts. Or any couple that mixes a family through divorce. Or any couple that uses artificial insemination via donor eggs or donor sperm. Namely, none. Adoption alone is millennium old. And the catastrophic and dire consequences you so melodramatically predicted..

....never happened. Your chicken little predictions of society's collapse, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria gripping the public.....was just more of your empty fearmongering. Which, of course, you know. Which, of course, you ignore. But no rational person ever would.

You've presented zero reason to ever deny a gay or lesbian their right to marry. You've just given us millions and millions of examples of straights 'harming children' by your own standards. And you being perfectly cool with it.

 

[Silhouette]

[

Why wouldn't it be? From your stark and bizarre avoidance of the question, it seems you know the answer as well as Kennedy does.

Of course it would benefit these children. But it wouldn't benefit your argument. So you completely ignore them.

It would benefit a far greater number of children than those caught up in gay lifestyles to grant marriage rights to single parents so their children could enjoy all the benefits of a married life too.

State incentivize marriage soley and only for the benefit of children in them. Gay marriages guarantee any children in those homes the absence of one blood parent/complimentary-gender role model 100% of the time. That's 100% of the time..

 

[Seawytch]

That's easily proven false. All you arguments have been proven false, but that won't stop you from using them over and over and over again.

If its gay marriage being 'real marriage' is easily proven false....then prove it.

In 32 of 50 States, same sex marriage is a real, legally valid, and protected as straight marriage. If you believe otherwise, make your case.

It's 35 now. There are only 15 states in which "marriage is between a man and a woman".

 

[WorldWatcher]

State incentivize marriage soley and only for the benefit of children in them.

Which makes no sense since some States REQUIRE that certain couples not be able to have children.


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

You wrote gays were not allowed to marry. That is false.

Then same sex marriage has always been legal?

Yes. Show me one place where anyone was ever prosecuted for having a gay wedding.

Then what, pray tell, is all the hub bub about? If same sex marriage has always been legal, what are conservatives fighting? Why did they submit appeals to say, Prop 8?

You fellas may want to compare your notes. Because if your claims are valid and gay marriage has always been legal, then they just wasted tons and tons of money on lawyers opposing gay marriage.

We are fighting extending state benefits to couples whose relationship generally and characteristically does nothing to benefit the state.
Doubtless that argument s lost on you.

And how does the relationships of the infertile or the childless 'benefit the state'? And remember, millions of them are married with benefits extended.

If there's room for millions upon millions of exceptions for straights, then there's room for gays and lesbians to add a few million more.

See, you're not getting it here. The fact that some couples cannot procreate is irrelevant. Hetero couples generally and characteristically do. Homosexual couples generally and characteristically do not. Maybe if I kept my posts to words of two syllables or less you might get it.

 

[The Rabbi]

State incentivize marriage soley and only for the benefit of children in them.

Which makes no sense since some States REQUIRE that certain couples not be able to have children.


>>>>

There is no state that requires that.

 

[Seawytch]

State incentivize marriage soley and only for the benefit of children in them.

Which makes no sense since some States REQUIRE that certain couples not be able to have children.


>>>>

There is no state that requires that.

I love that you said that with such certainty!

First cousin marriage is allowed in these states under the following circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.
​

State Laws Regarding Marriages Between First Cousins

​

 

[The Rabbi]

State incentivize marriage soley and only for the benefit of children in them.

Which makes no sense since some States REQUIRE that certain couples not be able to have children.


>>>>

There is no state that requires that.

I love that you said that with such certainty!

First cousin marriage is allowed in these states under the following circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.
​

State Laws Regarding Marriages Between First Cousins

​

That actually proves my point that states have an interest in fostering couples who will reproduce.

 

[Skylar]

It would benefit a far greater number of children than those caught up in gay lifestyles to grant marriage rights to single parents so their children could enjoy all the benefits of a married life too.

'Caught up in the gay lifestyle'? Seems your argument has shifted a bit away from your desire for children to be with full blood parents......to your personal animus of gay people.

Gee, how could anyone have seen that coming?

State incentivize marriage soley and only for the benefit of children in them. Gay marriages guarantee any children in those homes the absence of one blood parent/complimentary-gender role model 100% of the time. That's 100% of the time..

'Complimentary gender role models'? This is new too. Has this always been the motivation of your argument, or did you add this when your nonsense about 'full blood parents' completely collapsed? Remember, almost every instance of 'harm to children' you've cited of children not being raised by a 100% blood parent.....is done by straights.

And why would we deny gays the right to marry....because straight people 'harm children' by your standards? It makes no sense.