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

[Syriusly]

Luckily single parents are permitted by law to marry.

Something single gay parents want to have the same ability to do.

No one is stopping single gay parents from marrying singles of the opposite sex.
Even straight single parents cannot marry anyone of the same sex.
Still alleging discrimination?

In those States where single gay parents can marry a person of the gender of their choice, there is no discrimination.

And in states where anyone is not allowed to marry someone of the same sex there is no discrimination either.

Of course there is.

Mere assertion fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Please tell me where there is discrimination where no one can marry a member of the same sex.

More like Rabbi drools.

As noted in Wisconsin's ruling:

The Court said nothing about state laws such as Wisconsin’s marriage amendment that require discrimination and the
Court did not suggest that such laws are immune from constitutional review.

In this case, the ultimate question under both provisions
is whether the state may discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of issuing
marriage licenses and recognizing marriages performed in other states

 

[The Rabbi]

How do you feel about all those millions of children of single parents who are being deprived of the benefits of marriage? Suppose people choose to be single parents, must they marry another person to save their children the distress of not being in a married home? Couldn't people choose to love and marry themselves? Or are society's mores not quite ready for that? Maybe that's off in the future eh?

Luckily single parents are permitted by law to marry.

Something single gay parents want to have the same ability to do.

Single gay parents already have that ability. Single straught parents also cannot marry members of the same sex.
There is no discrimination, as you just showed.

How do you feel about all those millions of children of single parents who are being deprived of the benefits of marriage? Suppose people choose to be single parents, must they marry another person to save their children the distress of not being in a married home? Couldn't people choose to love and marry themselves? Or are society's mores not quite ready for that? Maybe that's off in the future eh?

Luckily single parents are permitted by law to marry.

Something single gay parents want to have the same ability to do.

Single gay parents already have that ability. Single straught parents also cannot marry members of the same sex.
There is no discrimination, as you just showed.

Luckily single parents are permitted by law to marry.

Something single gay parents want to have the same ability to do.

No one is stopping single gay parents from marrying singles of the opposite sex.
Even straight single parents cannot marry anyone of the same sex.
Still alleging discrimination?

Nobody is stopping us from marrying people of the same sex...in 35 out of 50 states. 35 > 15

Appeal to numbers fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

 

[The Rabbi]

No one is stopping single gay parents from marrying singles of the opposite sex.
Even straight single parents cannot marry anyone of the same sex.
Still alleging discrimination?

In those States where single gay parents can marry a person of the gender of their choice, there is no discrimination.

And in states where anyone is not allowed to marry someone of the same sex there is no discrimination either.

Of course there is.

Mere assertion fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Please tell me where there is discrimination where no one can marry a member of the same sex.

More like Rabbi drools.

As noted in Wisconsin's ruling:

The Court said nothing about state laws such as Wisconsin’s marriage amendment that require discrimination and the
Court did not suggest that such laws are immune from constitutional review.

In this case, the ultimate question under both provisions
is whether the state may discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of issuing
marriage licenses and recognizing marriages performed in other states

Appeal to authority fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In those States where single gay parents can marry a person of the gender of their choice, there is no discrimination.

And in states where anyone is not allowed to marry someone of the same sex there is no discrimination either.

Of course there is.

Mere assertion fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Please tell me where there is discrimination where no one can marry a member of the same sex.

More like Rabbi drools.

As noted in Wisconsin's ruling:

The Court said nothing about state laws such as Wisconsin’s marriage amendment that require discrimination and the
Court did not suggest that such laws are immune from constitutional review.

In this case, the ultimate question under both provisions
is whether the state may discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of issuing
marriage licenses and recognizing marriages performed in other states

Appeal to authority fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

What a shame for you that the authority in this case means you lose...

 

[Syriusly]

The state's role in marriage is 100% about the children anticipated to be there. You will find this out soon enough as attorneys opposed to your position begin to really turn up the heat in arguments geared to protect untold millions of children well into each state's distant future..

'begin to really turn up the heat'?

Really? Best get crackin with that.....before every State in the Union goes all GAY!

A: There have been 54 victories for the freedom to marry since June 2013, with many of those rulings on hold pending appeal. In total, 58 marriage rulings have been issued since June '13. Six rulings have been issued by a federal appellate court (with 5 victories), thirty-six rulings have been issued in federal court (with 34 victories), and sixteen have been issued in state court (with 15 victories). Judges have upheld marriage discrimination at the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (KY, MI, OH, TN), in Puerto Rico, in Louisiana, and in Tennessee

Meanwhile- when it comes to 'protect the children'- I fall back upon the wise words of Justice Kennedy again:

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

Please continue to ignore Justice Kennedy's concerns.

 

[Syriusly]

In those States where single gay parents can marry a person of the gender of their choice, there is no discrimination.

And in states where anyone is not allowed to marry someone of the same sex there is no discrimination either.

Of course there is.

Mere assertion fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Please tell me where there is discrimination where no one can marry a member of the same sex.

More like Rabbi drools.

As noted in Wisconsin's ruling:

The Court said nothing about state laws such as Wisconsin’s marriage amendment that require discrimination and the
Court did not suggest that such laws are immune from constitutional review.

In this case, the ultimate question under both provisions
is whether the state may discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of issuing
marriage licenses and recognizing marriages performed in other states

Appeal to authority fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Pointing out what the courts say- versus Rabbi drools.

 

[The Rabbi]

And in states where anyone is not allowed to marry someone of the same sex there is no discrimination either.

Of course there is.

Mere assertion fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Please tell me where there is discrimination where no one can marry a member of the same sex.

More like Rabbi drools.

As noted in Wisconsin's ruling:

The Court said nothing about state laws such as Wisconsin’s marriage amendment that require discrimination and the
Court did not suggest that such laws are immune from constitutional review.

In this case, the ultimate question under both provisions
is whether the state may discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of issuing
marriage licenses and recognizing marriages performed in other states

Appeal to authority fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Pointing out what the courts say- versus Rabbi drools.

Deflection!
Rabbi Rules!

 

[Syriusly]

Of course there is.

Mere assertion fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Please tell me where there is discrimination where no one can marry a member of the same sex.

More like Rabbi drools.

As noted in Wisconsin's ruling:

The Court said nothing about state laws such as Wisconsin’s marriage amendment that require discrimination and the
Court did not suggest that such laws are immune from constitutional review.

In this case, the ultimate question under both provisions
is whether the state may discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of issuing
marriage licenses and recognizing marriages performed in other states

Appeal to authority fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Pointing out what the courts say- versus Rabbi drools.

Deflection!
Rabbi Rules!

Cats rule
Rabbi drools.

 

[The Rabbi]

Mere assertion fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Please tell me where there is discrimination where no one can marry a member of the same sex.

More like Rabbi drools.

As noted in Wisconsin's ruling:

The Court said nothing about state laws such as Wisconsin’s marriage amendment that require discrimination and the
Court did not suggest that such laws are immune from constitutional review.

In this case, the ultimate question under both provisions
is whether the state may discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of issuing
marriage licenses and recognizing marriages performed in other states

Appeal to authority fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Pointing out what the courts say- versus Rabbi drools.

Deflection!
Rabbi Rules!

Cats rule
Rabbi drools.

Ad hom fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

 

[Syriusly]

More like Rabbi drools.

As noted in Wisconsin's ruling:

The Court said nothing about state laws such as Wisconsin’s marriage amendment that require discrimination and the
Court did not suggest that such laws are immune from constitutional review.

In this case, the ultimate question under both provisions
is whether the state may discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of issuing
marriage licenses and recognizing marriages performed in other states

Appeal to authority fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Pointing out what the courts say- versus Rabbi drools.

Deflection!
Rabbi Rules!

Cats rule
Rabbi drools.

Ad hom fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Cats rule
Rabbi drools.

 

[The Rabbi]

Appeal to authority fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Pointing out what the courts say- versus Rabbi drools.

Deflection!
Rabbi Rules!

Cats rule
Rabbi drools.

Ad hom fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Cats rule
Rabbi drools.

Due, you havebeen totally wiped in this debate. You are reduced to repeating childish slogans that frankly arent even very clever. Give it up.

 

[Syriusly]

Pointing out what the courts say- versus Rabbi drools.

Deflection!
Rabbi Rules!

Cats rule
Rabbi drools.

Ad hom fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Cats rule
Rabbi drools.

Due, you havebeen totally wiped in this debate. You are reduced to repeating childish slogans that frankly arent even very clever. Give it up.

Simpler just to copy and paste than waste time on your absurdities.

Let me know when you have a cogent argument based upon fact.

In the meantime- Rabbi drools.

 

[The Rabbi]

Deflection!
Rabbi Rules!

Cats rule
Rabbi drools.

Ad hom fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Cats rule
Rabbi drools.

Due, you havebeen totally wiped in this debate. You are reduced to repeating childish slogans that frankly arent even very clever. Give it up.

Simpler just to copy and paste than waste time on your absurdities.

Let me know when you have a cogent argument based upon fact.

In the meantime- Rabbi drools.

I have a cogent argument based on fact. That you cannot understand it isnt my problem.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Cats rule
Rabbi drools.

Ad hom fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Cats rule
Rabbi drools.

Due, you havebeen totally wiped in this debate. You are reduced to repeating childish slogans that frankly arent even very clever. Give it up.

Simpler just to copy and paste than waste time on your absurdities.

Let me know when you have a cogent argument based upon fact.

In the meantime- Rabbi drools.

I have a cogent argument based on fact. That you cannot understand it isnt my problem.

Your argument has died in the courts so often I've lost count. Learn to deal in reality, and the fact that your homophobia didn't win the day.

 

[Syriusly]

Cats rule
Rabbi drools.

Ad hom fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Cats rule
Rabbi drools.

Due, you havebeen totally wiped in this debate. You are reduced to repeating childish slogans that frankly arent even very clever. Give it up.

Simpler just to copy and paste than waste time on your absurdities.

Let me know when you have a cogent argument based upon fact.

In the meantime- Rabbi drools.

I have a cogent argument based on fact. That you cannot understand it isnt my problem.

Well your inability to make a cogent argument based upon fact is not my problem.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ad hom fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Cats rule
Rabbi drools.

Due, you havebeen totally wiped in this debate. You are reduced to repeating childish slogans that frankly arent even very clever. Give it up.

Simpler just to copy and paste than waste time on your absurdities.

Let me know when you have a cogent argument based upon fact.

In the meantime- Rabbi drools.

I have a cogent argument based on fact. That you cannot understand it isnt my problem.

Well your inability to make a cogent argument based upon fact is not my problem.

NO, I made the argument. I challenged you to show you understood it by repeating it. You failed to do that. Obviously you dont understand it. Since then you've simply repeated tripe and spewed insults. You are not capable of debate. That is clear. Alll that remains is to mock you.

 

[Skylar]

Cats rule
Rabbi drools.

Due, you havebeen totally wiped in this debate. You are reduced to repeating childish slogans that frankly arent even very clever. Give it up.

Simpler just to copy and paste than waste time on your absurdities.

Let me know when you have a cogent argument based upon fact.

In the meantime- Rabbi drools.

I have a cogent argument based on fact. That you cannot understand it isnt my problem.

Well your inability to make a cogent argument based upon fact is not my problem.

NO, I made the argument. I challenged you to show you understood it by repeating it. You failed to do that. Obviously you dont understand it. Since then you've simply repeated tripe and spewed insults. You are not capable of debate. That is clear. Alll that remains is to mock you.

If your arguments are so void of reason that even YOU won't state them, then clearly you need to reconsider your position.

Opposition to gay marriage simply makes no sense. As the procreation requirements that many opponents use to justify their bans aren't applied to anyone. Why then would we invent standards that don't exist, exempt straights, and then apply them to gays exclusively?

Obviously, we wouldn't.

 

[The Rabbi]

Due, you havebeen totally wiped in this debate. You are reduced to repeating childish slogans that frankly arent even very clever. Give it up.

Simpler just to copy and paste than waste time on your absurdities.

Let me know when you have a cogent argument based upon fact.

In the meantime- Rabbi drools.

I have a cogent argument based on fact. That you cannot understand it isnt my problem.

Well your inability to make a cogent argument based upon fact is not my problem.

NO, I made the argument. I challenged you to show you understood it by repeating it. You failed to do that. Obviously you dont understand it. Since then you've simply repeated tripe and spewed insults. You are not capable of debate. That is clear. Alll that remains is to mock you.

If your arguments are so void of reason that even YOU won't state them, then clearly you need to reconsider your position.

Opposition to gay marriage simply makes no sense. As the procreation requirements that many opponents use to justify their bans aren't applied to anyone. Why then would we invent standards that don't exist, exempt straights, and then apply them to gays exclusively?

Obviously, we wouldn't.

I have stated them clearly several times. I have challenged you and Dickbreath to repeat them to show you understand the argument. Not agree with it, just understand it.
You both have failed totally.

 

[Skylar]

The state isn't in the business of forcing male/female couples to prove themselves fertile. The state is only in the business of assuming (rightfully so) that the only eligible candidates to be "two blood parents of the children in a given home" are male/female....100% of the time. Childless hetero couples do not fetter the state's anticipation in this regard. They do not mar or tarnish the simple structure of the incentive brass ring.

If there can be millions and million of exceptions to you '100% blood rule', why then would gays be ineligible for such an exception? If you're granting them only to straights, then you have a clearly 14th amendment violation. As you're not applying the vote equally.

Further, straights are the one's overwhelmingly violating a child's so called 'right two blood parents', as they conduct almost all adoptions, have almost all mixed families of divorce, and have almost in vitro fertilization from donor eggs or sperm. Yet you don't offer a hint of complaint that married straights do this....as you don't believe your own imaginary standards of 'harm'.

And history doesn't demonstrate them. As we've had adoption for millenium. Mixed families for as long as we've been a country, and IVF for a generation. None of the society collapsing consequences you imagined ever happened. Robbing you of any rational basis for your chicken little predictions of the end of our civilization if gays adopt. Or have IVF. Or have mixed families.

So why would we deny gays and lesbians the right to marry based on a criteria that has nothing to do with marraige....and married straights do thousands of times a day?

There is no reason. The standard you insist we apply to gays applies to no one.

 

[Syriusly]

Cats rule
Rabbi drools.

Due, you havebeen totally wiped in this debate. You are reduced to repeating childish slogans that frankly arent even very clever. Give it up.

Simpler just to copy and paste than waste time on your absurdities.

Let me know when you have a cogent argument based upon fact.

In the meantime- Rabbi drools.

I have a cogent argument based on fact. That you cannot understand it isnt my problem.

Well your inability to make a cogent argument based upon fact is not my problem.

NO, I made the argument. I challenged you to show you understood it by repeating it. You failed to do that. Obviously you dont understand it. Since then you've simply repeated tripe and spewed insults. You are not capable of debate. That is clear. Alll that remains is to mock you.

Like I said

Well your inability to make a cogent argument based upon fact is not my problem.