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

[Skylar]

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.

So allowing marriage only after a couple proves they CAN'T reproduce proves that the States have an interest in couples that can reproduce?

I don't think 'can't' means what you think it means.

 

[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.

So allowing marriage only after a couple proves they CAN'T reproduce proves that the States have an interest in couples that can reproduce?

I don't think 'can't' means what you think it means.

Since you are incapable of much understanding I am not surprised you dont get this.

 

[Skylar]

See, you're not getting it here. The fact that some couples cannot procreate is irrelevant.

If the ability of a couple to procreate is irrelevant to their ability to get married....then why would we ever deny gays and lesbians the right to marry based on an irrelevant criteria?

So what benefit do straights bring to marriage that benefits the state? Remember, you've already taken procreation off the table.

Hetero couples generally and characteristically do.

Yet their marriages are just as valid if they generally and characteristically can't. Demonstrating undeniably that there is a valid basis of marriage that has absolutely nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

Having established that children or the ability to have children aren't necessary to have a valid marriage.....why would we ban gays or lesbians based on their inability to have kids? The criteria you're using to exclude gays.....doesn't apply to anyone. Why then would it apply to gays, and then apply ONLY to gays?

It makes no sense.

 

[Skylar]

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.

So allowing marriage only after a couple proves they CAN'T reproduce proves that the States have an interest in couples that can reproduce?

I don't think 'can't' means what you think it means.

Since you are incapable of much understanding I am not surprised you dont get this.

Oh, secret evidence again. Where you have the answer to my question.....you just can't articulate it, verify or share it in any way. Um, because.

Laughing....has that schtick ever worked?

I ask again, how does allowing marriage only after a couple proves they CAN'T reproduce prove that the States have an interest in couples that can reproduce?

 

[Skylar]

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.


>>>>

Or worse, requires that NO couple to reproduce or be able to reproduce to enter into a valid marriage. So the criteria that Rabbi is insisting we exclude gays on....doesn't exist and applies to no one. Why then would we exclude gays based on extra-legal standards that exist in no law, and apply to no one?

Obviously, we wouldn't

Worse still, Rabbi has said, that the fact that a couple cannot procreate is irrelevant to marriage. I whole heartedly agree.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

So allowing marriage only after a couple proves they CAN'T reproduce proves that the States have an interest in couples that can reproduce?

I don't think 'can't' means what you think it means.

Since you are incapable of much understanding I am not surprised you dont get this.

Oh, secret evidence again. Where you have the answer to my question.....you just can't articulate it, verify or share it in any way. Um, because.

Laughing....has that schtick ever worked?

I ask again, how does allowing marriage only after a couple proves they CAN'T reproduce prove that the States have an interest in couples that can reproduce?

Tell me why the laws in those states specify the relationship they do. There's your answer.

 

[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.


>>>>

Or worse, requires that NO couple to reproduce or be able to reproduce to enter into a valid marriage. So the criteria that Rabbi is insisting we exclude gays on....doesn't exist and applies to no one. Why then would we exclude gays based on extra-legal standards that exist in no law, and apply to no one?

Obviously, we wouldn't

Worse still, Rabbi has said, that the fact that a couple cannot procreate is irrelevant to marriage. I whole heartedly agree.

I said the fact that A couple cannot procreate is irrelevant.
The fact that generally and characteristically some classes of couples do is the essence of the argument.
You must not understand words of more than two syllables.

 

[Skylar]

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.

So allowing marriage only after a couple proves they CAN'T reproduce proves that the States have an interest in couples that can reproduce?

I don't think 'can't' means what you think it means.

Since you are incapable of much understanding I am not surprised you dont get this.

Oh, secret evidence again. Where you have the answer to my question.....you just can't articulate it, verify or share it in any way. Um, because.

Laughing....has that schtick ever worked?

I ask again, how does allowing marriage only after a couple proves they CAN'T reproduce prove that the States have an interest in couples that can reproduce?

Tell me why the laws in those states specify the relationship they do. There's your answer.

The ones that have been overturned in State after State until gay marriage is now legal in 35 States?

 

[The Rabbi]

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

So allowing marriage only after a couple proves they CAN'T reproduce proves that the States have an interest in couples that can reproduce?

I don't think 'can't' means what you think it means.

Since you are incapable of much understanding I am not surprised you dont get this.

Oh, secret evidence again. Where you have the answer to my question.....you just can't articulate it, verify or share it in any way. Um, because.

Laughing....has that schtick ever worked?

I ask again, how does allowing marriage only after a couple proves they CAN'T reproduce prove that the States have an interest in couples that can reproduce?

Tell me why the laws in those states specify the relationship they do. There's your answer.

The ones that have been overturned in State after State until gay marriage is now legal in 35 States?

Deflection.
Answer the question or shut the fuck up.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

It is a corner that they paint themselves into.

The anti-gay activists claim that marriage is all about the children- about ensuring that children are raised in a stable home with married parents- but what they mean is 'marriage is for heterosexuals because sometimes heterosexuals have biological children'

Even the homophobes (generally) accept that heterosexuals who adopt children are real parents- and that marriage would be a good thing for those children.

But they don't seem to think that marriage would be a good thing for the children of gay parents.

OR they think that the children of gay parents don't deserve the protections that the children of heterosexual parents have.


BUT what I really think that the homophobes believe is that homosexuals should be banned from having children-that government should ensure that lesbians don't bear children, that homosexuals are not allowed to adopt children, and ultimately government should put homosexuals back to living in fear in the closet.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

It is a corner that they paint themselves into.

The anti-gay activists claim that marriage is all about the children- about ensuring that children are raised in a stable home with married parents- but what they mean is 'marriage is for heterosexuals because sometimes heterosexuals have biological children'

Even the homophobes (generally) accept that heterosexuals who adopt children are real parents- and that marriage would be a good thing for those children.

But they don't seem to think that marriage would be a good thing for the children of gay parents.

OR they think that the children of gay parents don't deserve the protections that the children of heterosexual parents have.


BUT what I really think that the homophobes believe is that homosexuals should be banned from having children-that government should ensure that lesbians don't bear children, that homosexuals are not allowed to adopt children, and ultimately government should put homosexuals back to living in fear in the closet.

You've already demonstrated failure to understand the argument. No need to demonstrate further.

 

[Syriusly]

So allowing marriage only after a couple proves they CAN'T reproduce proves that the States have an interest in couples that can reproduce?

I don't think 'can't' means what you think it means.

Since you are incapable of much understanding I am not surprised you dont get this.

Oh, secret evidence again. Where you have the answer to my question.....you just can't articulate it, verify or share it in any way. Um, because.

Laughing....has that schtick ever worked?

I ask again, how does allowing marriage only after a couple proves they CAN'T reproduce prove that the States have an interest in couples that can reproduce?

Tell me why the laws in those states specify the relationship they do. There's your answer.

The ones that have been overturned in State after State until gay marriage is now legal in 35 States?

Deflection.
Answer the question or shut the fuck up.

Ever noticed how Rabbi gets a potty mouth when he gets frustrated?

LOL.....which is often.

 

[Skylar]

I said the fact that A couple cannot procreate is irrelevant.

If its irrelevant, then why would we exclude gays based on a criteria that doesn't apply to anyone? Remember, NO straight couple is denied marriage due to their inability to procreate or their refusal to do so.

The standard of exclusion you've cited for stripping gays and lesbians of their right to marry....doesn't apply to anyone.

The fact that generally and characteristically some classes of couples do is the essence of the argument.

Save when you make millions of exceptions. But only for straight people and by the millions.

You're kinda stuck. You're violating the 14th amendment by not offering gays the same protection under the law as you do straights....by withholding the exceptions that you give to straights. And the millions of infertile and childless couples demonstrate that there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

Your argument fails twice. Which is probably why the courts have overturned gay marriage bans by the States 24 times so far.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

It is a corner that they paint themselves into.

The anti-gay activists claim that marriage is all about the children- about ensuring that children are raised in a stable home with married parents- but what they mean is 'marriage is for heterosexuals because sometimes heterosexuals have biological children'

Even the homophobes (generally) accept that heterosexuals who adopt children are real parents- and that marriage would be a good thing for those children.

But they don't seem to think that marriage would be a good thing for the children of gay parents.

OR they think that the children of gay parents don't deserve the protections that the children of heterosexual parents have.


BUT what I really think that the homophobes believe is that homosexuals should be banned from having children-that government should ensure that lesbians don't bear children, that homosexuals are not allowed to adopt children, and ultimately government should put homosexuals back to living in fear in the closet.

You've already demonstrated failure to understand the argument. No need to demonstrate further.

You have already demonstrated that you don't care about children, and that your entire argument is designed to encourage discrimination against homosexuals.

 

[The Rabbi]

I said the fact that A couple cannot procreate is irrelevant.

If its irrelevant, then why would we exclude gays based on a criteria that doesn't apply to anyone? Remember, NO straight couple is denied marriage due to their inability to procreate or their refusal to do so.

The standard of exclusion you've cited for stripping gays and lesbians of their right to marry....doesn't apply to anyone.

The fact that generally and characteristically some classes of couples do is the essence of the argument.

Save when you make millions of exceptions. But only for straight people and by the millions.

You're kinda stuck. You're violating the 14th amendment by not offering gays the same protection under the law as you do straights....by withholding the exceptions that you give to straights. And the millions of infertile and childless couples demonstrate that there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

Your argument fails twice. Which is probably why the courts have overturned gay marriage bans by the States 24 times so far.

You clearly do not understand the argument. Is this because you are being deceptive or are you actually this stupid?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

It is a corner that they paint themselves into.

The anti-gay activists claim that marriage is all about the children- about ensuring that children are raised in a stable home with married parents- but what they mean is 'marriage is for heterosexuals because sometimes heterosexuals have biological children'

Even the homophobes (generally) accept that heterosexuals who adopt children are real parents- and that marriage would be a good thing for those children.

But they don't seem to think that marriage would be a good thing for the children of gay parents.

OR they think that the children of gay parents don't deserve the protections that the children of heterosexual parents have.


BUT what I really think that the homophobes believe is that homosexuals should be banned from having children-that government should ensure that lesbians don't bear children, that homosexuals are not allowed to adopt children, and ultimately government should put homosexuals back to living in fear in the closet.

You've already demonstrated failure to understand the argument. No need to demonstrate further.

You have already demonstrated that you don't care about children, and that your entire argument is designed to encourage discrimination against homosexuals.

Ad hom fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

 

[Skylar]

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.

It is a corner that they paint themselves into.

The anti-gay activists claim that marriage is all about the children- about ensuring that children are raised in a stable home with married parents- but what they mean is 'marriage is for heterosexuals because sometimes heterosexuals have biological children'

Even the homophobes (generally) accept that heterosexuals who adopt children are real parents- and that marriage would be a good thing for those children.

But they don't seem to think that marriage would be a good thing for the children of gay parents.

OR they think that the children of gay parents don't deserve the protections that the children of heterosexual parents have.


BUT what I really think that the homophobes believe is that homosexuals should be banned from having children-that government should ensure that lesbians don't bear children, that homosexuals are not allowed to adopt children, and ultimately government should put homosexuals back to living in fear in the closet.

You've already demonstrated failure to understand the argument. No need to demonstrate further.

Translation: you're stuck.

You're as predictable as clockwork. When your argument breaks, you start with your 'secret evidence' schtick. Where you have the answer....but you can't state it.

Laughing.....you don't need an excuse to run, Rabbi. Just run.

 

[Skylar]

I said the fact that A couple cannot procreate is irrelevant.

If its irrelevant, then why would we exclude gays based on a criteria that doesn't apply to anyone? Remember, NO straight couple is denied marriage due to their inability to procreate or their refusal to do so.

The standard of exclusion you've cited for stripping gays and lesbians of their right to marry....doesn't apply to anyone.

The fact that generally and characteristically some classes of couples do is the essence of the argument.

Save when you make millions of exceptions. But only for straight people and by the millions.

You're kinda stuck. You're violating the 14th amendment by not offering gays the same protection under the law as you do straights....by withholding the exceptions that you give to straights. And the millions of infertile and childless couples demonstrate that there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

Your argument fails twice. Which is probably why the courts have overturned gay marriage bans by the States 24 times so far.

You clearly do not understand the argument. Is this because you are being deceptive or are you actually this stupid?

I clearly understand that your argument doesn't work. Which is why you're resulting to insults rather than rational debate.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have needed to run.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

It is a corner that they paint themselves into.

The anti-gay activists claim that marriage is all about the children- about ensuring that children are raised in a stable home with married parents- but what they mean is 'marriage is for heterosexuals because sometimes heterosexuals have biological children'

Even the homophobes (generally) accept that heterosexuals who adopt children are real parents- and that marriage would be a good thing for those children.

But they don't seem to think that marriage would be a good thing for the children of gay parents.

OR they think that the children of gay parents don't deserve the protections that the children of heterosexual parents have.


BUT what I really think that the homophobes believe is that homosexuals should be banned from having children-that government should ensure that lesbians don't bear children, that homosexuals are not allowed to adopt children, and ultimately government should put homosexuals back to living in fear in the closet.

You've already demonstrated failure to understand the argument. No need to demonstrate further.

Translation: you're stuck.

You're as predictable as clockwork. When your argument breaks, you start with your 'secret evidence' schtick. Where you have the answer....but you can't state it.

Laughing.....you don't need an excuse to run, Rabbi. Just run.

Since you do not undestand my argument you cannot refute it. Declaring victory is hollow and cheap. Like your posts.

 

[The Rabbi]

I said the fact that A couple cannot procreate is irrelevant.

If its irrelevant, then why would we exclude gays based on a criteria that doesn't apply to anyone? Remember, NO straight couple is denied marriage due to their inability to procreate or their refusal to do so.

The standard of exclusion you've cited for stripping gays and lesbians of their right to marry....doesn't apply to anyone.

The fact that generally and characteristically some classes of couples do is the essence of the argument.

Save when you make millions of exceptions. But only for straight people and by the millions.

You're kinda stuck. You're violating the 14th amendment by not offering gays the same protection under the law as you do straights....by withholding the exceptions that you give to straights. And the millions of infertile and childless couples demonstrate that there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

Your argument fails twice. Which is probably why the courts have overturned gay marriage bans by the States 24 times so far.

You clearly do not understand the argument. Is this because you are being deceptive or are you actually this stupid?

I clearly understand that your argument doesn't work. Which is why you're resulting to insults rather than rational debate.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have needed to run.

You do not understand my argument. I can demonstrate that conclusively.