Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
That is what the homophobic bigots keep claiming.
But then again that was what racial bigots claimed after Loving v. Virginia.
Bigots are bigots. Bigots will be bigots.
Yet you have not pointed out how my point was wrong.
Marriage was between members of opposing sex, and because making this an absolute would allow potential incestuous state sanctioned incest, they added that the two be not too closely related.
The Loving decision kept that important point, not only in tact, but meeting the important standards of equal protection and it did meet the States compelling interest.
It was the recent ruling that made those standards discrimatory as two same sex siblings either would not desire sex (hetros) or the state is presuming a sexual interaction, without any evidence (the burdon of proof standard). We don't presume those entering any other contract will result in sexual contact, yet we presume those simply seeking the benefits of marriage will?
Can you site evidence that sexual contact is the only reason immediate relation marriages are banned?
Not now I can't since marriage is not only between a man and woman.
*sigh*
Let me rephrase then. Can you site evidence that sexual contact was the only reason immediate relation marriages were banned?
No, sexual contact, nor any other reason is a requirement of marriage.
The license is simply a contract. Not that much different to an LLC. Do you assume that family members of an LLC will perform incest?
Regardless, prior to the change, no family member could marry for the reasons you can come up with. Those reasons now make presumptions that may not exist, especially with same sex sibling simply wanting the benefits afforded with marriage.
Denial of rights based on assumptions is unjust law.
Yet you have not pointed out how my point was wrong.
Marriage was between members of opposing sex, and because making this an absolute would allow potential incestuous state sanctioned incest, they added that the two be not too closely related.
The Loving decision kept that important point, not only in tact, but meeting the important standards of equal protection and it did meet the States compelling interest.
It was the recent ruling that made those standards discrimatory as two same sex siblings either would not desire sex (hetros) or the state is presuming a sexual interaction, without any evidence (the burdon of proof standard). We don't presume those entering any other contract will result in sexual contact, yet we presume those simply seeking the benefits of marriage will?
Can you site evidence that sexual contact is the only reason immediate relation marriages are banned?
Not now I can't since marriage is not only between a man and woman.
*sigh*
Let me rephrase then. Can you site evidence that sexual contact was the only reason immediate relation marriages were banned?
No, sexual contact, nor any other reason is a requirement of marriage.
The license is simply a contract. Not that much different to an LLC. Do you assume that family members of an LLC will perform incest?
Regardless, prior to the change, no family member could marry for the reasons you can come up with. Those reasons now make presumptions that may not exist, especially with same sex sibling simply wanting the benefits afforded with marriage.
Denial of rights based on assumptions is unjust law.
You are missing the point...intentionally, I think.
Your argument is based on close relation marriages being banned because of sexual/procreation reasons. If there is a compelling reason to ban such marriages that doesn't involve sex, your argument fails.
You have a pathetically piss poor understanding of how things work. First of all, SCOTUS did not "change the laws regarding marriage" They invalidated the new laws that were superimposed on those original laws which banned same sex marriage. Doing so DID NOT disturb laws concerning incest, age of consent or anything else.Of course I know that laws can be changed in other ways. You could also ask your assemblyman or senator to introduce legislation to allow you to marry your mother, or your dog, or both. But all of this other stuff carries with it different issues and consequences for society and each must be assessed on their own merits.
The question of whether sibling marriage can be seen as a civil rights issue is an open one. Civil rights are violated when one group is treated different and suffers as the result of capricious and arbitrary discrimination for no purpose other than to disparage and marginalize them. Gay have proven that was exactly what was happening to them. You and your mother, or those sisters would have to do the same thing. Good like bubba.
Aren't you getting tired of this? You are not proving your slippery slope nonsense at all. Not even close. Same sex marriage is here to stay. End of story
I've never tired of discussing civil rights.
This is not a slippery slope discussion but I can see why you would like it to be.
Prior to the exclusion of the need for opposite gender requirement in marriage, I had zero argument as the equal protection clause would not have come into play. Excluding siblings, or for that matter, all family members from marriage was indeed constitutional. Now , I don't see the argument that this kind exclusion can meet constitutional muster unless you can find where sexual contact, between the partners is a requirement of marriage. Now you would need the presumption that the partners intended to break the law without any probable cause.
And that my friend is why the OP may indeed be correct that homosexual, and indeed all marriage could cease to exist.
If not a slippery slope fallacy what is it. Its is either a slippery slope to other forms of marriage, or it's a slippery slope to the demise of marriage. In any case it is indeed a slippery slop argument.
Excluding siblings and other family members from marriage has not been challenged on constitutional ( or any other ) grounds so no one can say whether or not it is constitutional or not. And, that has not changed as a result of Obergefell.
Furthermore, marriage is about much more than sexual contact. Of course it is not a requirement. Marriage is about family and what constitutes family and the purpose of marriage. As I said, there are a host of different issues and consequences when you are talking about people marrying within an existing family.
Tell you what, go away and come back when there is either a movement advocating sibling marriage, or, when there is a viable effort to get government out of marriage. In the mean time leave me alone.
Thanks for the invite but I think I'll stick around and talk about how, when you modify a law, something best left to the legislative bodies, how you sometimes create a worse situation.
As for constitutionality. Due process has met that challenge, equal protection and its application has met that challenge. The States responsibilty to provide a compelling reason to deny citizens their rights have met judicial challenge as has probable cause.
So, your claim to a slippery slope falicy seems without merit.
Thanks
You just keep arguing that there will be a slippery slope. 11 years and no such 'slipping' has happened.
Your bigotry against homosexuals just leads you to your unsubstantiated predictions and opinions.
Again a deflection. States will need to look at the change the USSC made to the law and decide if the law can legally exclude same sex siblings the benefits of marriage
Unless you can come up with a compelling state interest in the denial of these rights, then so will they.
Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.But there are physiological reasons to deny marrying anything other than a non-sibling hetero partner. Procreation for anything beyond hetero and birth defects among siblings.I do not think they should dimwit, give me the compelling state interest in denying the right to same sex heterosexual sibling from entering into a marriage.
No one is saying that there is a compelling reason to not allow siblings to marry-dimwit. If you want to marry your brother, or your mother, or your lawn mower, petition the court for permission. It would then be up to the state to defend their prohibition of such things. They may or may not prevail. It's a separate issue . Next stupid question?
Next ridiculous question that the originators of marriage didn't think would need to asked...
Yet sex is not a requirement of marriage. You presume two people would break a law without probable cause? That doesn't withstand judicial muster.
My neighbor put 4 kids through college, he doesn't make enough money to do so, so I guess he should be jailed for bank robbery because........
'the originators of marriage'? LOL.
Throughout history marriage was not much more than the transfer of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband.
The 'originators of marriage' likely didn't anticipate wives being equal partners in marriage either.
Marriage has not only changed radically in time- it has improved.
But you have to. That's what the legal status does. You must allow it to adopt and pretend to be parents and you must subsidize it through tax breaks and you must give it all of the concessions that hetero marriages warrant evn though it can't procreate as heteros do.So if you aren't advocating getting rid of civil marriages, what exactly are you saying? You've said something about states no longer sanctioning marriage.....but you've had multiple posters telling you that the sited Alabama law would not get rid of state-sanctioned marriage, it would merely change the way people entered into such a union.
It certainly sounded like you were saying states would get out of marriages altogether, but now you are saying civil marriage will remain? What does it matter if states issue a marriage license or if couples file a form?
Well first of all, I don't care what people here have said, that doesn't really mean anything to me. We can sit here and "say" anything we please. If there is no more marriage license being issued by the state, there is no more sanctioning of marriage by the state. Would people still fill out forms? Sure... people fill out forms all the time for all kinds of things, no one is opposed to form filling out. As long as the state isn't sanctioning marriages, that's all that matters.
I've not argued that this would result in marriage ending. Only state sponsoring of marriage. Again, no one is opposed to people having whatever kind of relationship and calling it whatever they please, they just don't want to be forced to recognize it or have it ordained by the state. If you want to fuck people in the ass and call that marriage, the SCOTUS says you can do that. I don't have to condone it or recognize it as such. And guess what? You're never going to make me accept it as such. You can have all the 5-4 SCOTUS rulings you like, I'm not accepting it.
So if you aren't advocating getting rid of civil marriages, what exactly are you saying? You've said something about states no longer sanctioning marriage.....but you've had multiple posters telling you that the sited Alabama law would not get rid of state-sanctioned marriage, it would merely change the way people entered into such a union.
It certainly sounded like you were saying states would get out of marriages altogether, but now you are saying civil marriage will remain? What does it matter if states issue a marriage license or if couples file a form?
Well first of all, I don't care what people here have said, that doesn't really mean anything to me. We can sit here and "say" anything we please. If there is no more marriage license being issued by the state, there is no more sanctioning of marriage by the state. Would people still fill out forms? Sure... people fill out forms all the time for all kinds of things, no one is opposed to form filling out. As long as the state isn't sanctioning marriages, that's all that matters.
I've not argued that this would result in marriage ending. Only state sponsoring of marriage. Again, no one is opposed to people having whatever kind of relationship and calling it whatever they please, they just don't want to be forced to recognize it or have it ordained by the state. If you want to fuck people in the ass and call that marriage, the SCOTUS says you can do that. I don't have to condone it or recognize it as such. And guess what? You're never going to make me accept it as such. You can have all the 5-4 SCOTUS rulings you like, I'm not accepting it.
Marriage licenses are marriage? If the state still grants the same benefits to couples, still treats them as immediate family members where they were not before, still allows them to file taxes as a married couple, still grants medical and attorney rights as next of kin, and still lists this legal relationship as marriage, but does not require a license be issued in order for this relationship to be sanctioned, you are saying it is no longer marriage?
The legislation which WorldWatcher linked clearly states that state sanctioned marriages would continue. It simply changed the way those marriages would be obtained. Here are the opening lines : "To amend Sections 22-9A-17, 30-1-5, 30-1-12, 30-1-13, and 30-1-16 of the Code of Alabama 1975, to abolish the requirement that a marriage license be issued by the judge of probate and replace existing state statutory marriage law with a statutory contract for marriage; to provide that a marriage would be entered into by contract; to provide that the judge of probate would record each contract of marriage presented to the probate court for recording and would forward the contract to the Office of Vital Statistics; to provide for the content of a properly executed contract of marriage; to confirm the continued existence of common law marriage in Alabama; and to repeal Sections 30-1-9, 30-1-10, 30-1-11, and 30-1-14 of the Code of Alabama 1975.". Note it talks about how state sanctioned marriages would be entered into, not that ending the licensing process would end state sanctioned marriage.
But you have to. That's what the legal status does. You must allow it to adopt and pretend to be parents and you must subsidize it through tax breaks and you must give it all of the concessions that hetero marriages warrant evn though it can't procreate as heteros do.
That's the problem with the distinction of legal homo marriage.
Adoption used to give priority to hetero, married couples. As demonstrated by the changes over the past forty years, that is the best situation to place a kid in. That has now been undermined by giving homo marriages the exact same opportunity.But you have to. That's what the legal status does. You must allow it to adopt and pretend to be parents and you must subsidize it through tax breaks and you must give it all of the concessions that hetero marriages warrant evn though it can't procreate as heteros do.
That's the problem with the distinction of legal homo marriage.
I disagree. Adoption requirements have little to do with marriage. Adoption agencies will still conduct rigorous background and character checks on any couple wishing to adopt. They still retain the authority to make their determinations on any basis they please and are not bound by anti-discrimination laws when it comes to their decisions. Any and all decisions they make regarding adoption are discriminatory, that's the nature of what the process is. You are in fact, discriminating against people on the basis of what kind of parent you think they will make. This isn't service in a restaurant.
As for the rest of your list... we don't have to give tax breaks to couples. We don't have to provide concessions for couples. I bet our government and infrastructure would operate just fine without government recognizing ANY domestic relationship.
So if you aren't advocating getting rid of civil marriages, what exactly are you saying? You've said something about states no longer sanctioning marriage.....but you've had multiple posters telling you that the sited Alabama law would not get rid of state-sanctioned marriage, it would merely change the way people entered into such a union.
It certainly sounded like you were saying states would get out of marriages altogether, but now you are saying civil marriage will remain? What does it matter if states issue a marriage license or if couples file a form?
Well first of all, I don't care what people here have said, that doesn't really mean anything to me. We can sit here and "say" anything we please. If there is no more marriage license being issued by the state, there is no more sanctioning of marriage by the state. Would people still fill out forms? Sure... people fill out forms all the time for all kinds of things, no one is opposed to form filling out. As long as the state isn't sanctioning marriages, that's all that matters.
I've not argued that this would result in marriage ending. Only state sponsoring of marriage. Again, no one is opposed to people having whatever kind of relationship and calling it whatever they please, they just don't want to be forced to recognize it or have it ordained by the state. If you want to fuck people in the ass and call that marriage, the SCOTUS says you can do that. I don't have to condone it or recognize it as such. And guess what? You're never going to make me accept it as such. You can have all the 5-4 SCOTUS rulings you like, I'm not accepting it.
Marriage licenses are marriage? If the state still grants the same benefits to couples, still treats them as immediate family members where they were not before, still allows them to file taxes as a married couple, still grants medical and attorney rights as next of kin, and still lists this legal relationship as marriage, but does not require a license be issued in order for this relationship to be sanctioned, you are saying it is no longer marriage?
The legislation which WorldWatcher linked clearly states that state sanctioned marriages would continue. It simply changed the way those marriages would be obtained. Here are the opening lines : "To amend Sections 22-9A-17, 30-1-5, 30-1-12, 30-1-13, and 30-1-16 of the Code of Alabama 1975, to abolish the requirement that a marriage license be issued by the judge of probate and replace existing state statutory marriage law with a statutory contract for marriage; to provide that a marriage would be entered into by contract; to provide that the judge of probate would record each contract of marriage presented to the probate court for recording and would forward the contract to the Office of Vital Statistics; to provide for the content of a properly executed contract of marriage; to confirm the continued existence of common law marriage in Alabama; and to repeal Sections 30-1-9, 30-1-10, 30-1-11, and 30-1-14 of the Code of Alabama 1975.". Note it talks about how state sanctioned marriages would be entered into, not that ending the licensing process would end state sanctioned marriage.
You are so funny and typical of the gay rights bunch. Here is a resolve that gives you everything you claim to want with the exception of the license itself, and all you seem to want is for me to acknowledge acceptance of gay marriage in some way. It's not good enough for you unless you can cram this down my throat and make me accept it. And that's because this is really what this issue has always been about.
Yes, Alabama's legal measure to remove the state from the obligation of sanctioning marriage is going to contain certain legal requirements which the state has to meet in order to comply with the constitution and federal laws in other areas. If the new law didn't cover those things it could be challenged by some liberal goof like you who was butt hurt over not getting your gay marriage license.
So we meet the statutory requirements without endorsing your type of marriage... but that's not good enough for people like you. Nooo... our noses have to be rubbed in it! We have to be made to see that what we did was meaningless and didn't change anything. That the state would still be sanctioning gay marriage even though they are no longer sanctioning any kind of marriage officially.
As for the State acknowledging your gay marriage... If they acknowledge any kind of marriage they have to now include gay marriage according to SCOTUS. There is nothing the State can do about that, or the people of the state. However, there is nothing which says the State must acknowledge any kind of marriage. If there is no State benefit or interest, there is no need for acknowledgement.
And... all of this aside, you can never force me to accept gay marriage.
But you have to. That's what the legal status does. You must allow it to adopt and pretend to be parents and you must subsidize it through tax breaks and you must give it all of the concessions that hetero marriages warrant evn though it can't procreate as heteros do.So if you aren't advocating getting rid of civil marriages, what exactly are you saying? You've said something about states no longer sanctioning marriage.....but you've had multiple posters telling you that the sited Alabama law would not get rid of state-sanctioned marriage, it would merely change the way people entered into such a union.
It certainly sounded like you were saying states would get out of marriages altogether, but now you are saying civil marriage will remain? What does it matter if states issue a marriage license or if couples file a form?
Well first of all, I don't care what people here have said, that doesn't really mean anything to me. We can sit here and "say" anything we please. If there is no more marriage license being issued by the state, there is no more sanctioning of marriage by the state. Would people still fill out forms? Sure... people fill out forms all the time for all kinds of things, no one is opposed to form filling out. As long as the state isn't sanctioning marriages, that's all that matters.
I've not argued that this would result in marriage ending. Only state sponsoring of marriage. Again, no one is opposed to people having whatever kind of relationship and calling it whatever they please, they just don't want to be forced to recognize it or have it ordained by the state. If you want to fuck people in the ass and call that marriage, the SCOTUS says you can do that. I don't have to condone it or recognize it as such. And guess what? You're never going to make me accept it as such. You can have all the 5-4 SCOTUS rulings you like, I'm not accepting it.
That's the problem with the distinction of legal homo marriage.
So if you aren't advocating getting rid of civil marriages, what exactly are you saying? You've said something about states no longer sanctioning marriage.....but you've had multiple posters telling you that the sited Alabama law would not get rid of state-sanctioned marriage, it would merely change the way people entered into such a union.
It certainly sounded like you were saying states would get out of marriages altogether, but now you are saying civil marriage will remain? What does it matter if states issue a marriage license or if couples file a form?
Well first of all, I don't care what people here have said, that doesn't really mean anything to me. We can sit here and "say" anything we please. If there is no more marriage license being issued by the state, there is no more sanctioning of marriage by the state. Would people still fill out forms? Sure... people fill out forms all the time for all kinds of things, no one is opposed to form filling out. As long as the state isn't sanctioning marriages, that's all that matters.
I've not argued that this would result in marriage ending. Only state sponsoring of marriage. Again, no one is opposed to people having whatever kind of relationship and calling it whatever they please, they just don't want to be forced to recognize it or have it ordained by the state. If you want to fuck people in the ass and call that marriage, the SCOTUS says you can do that. I don't have to condone it or recognize it as such. And guess what? You're never going to make me accept it as such. You can have all the 5-4 SCOTUS rulings you like, I'm not accepting it.
Marriage licenses are marriage? If the state still grants the same benefits to couples, still treats them as immediate family members where they were not before, still allows them to file taxes as a married couple, still grants medical and attorney rights as next of kin, and still lists this legal relationship as marriage, but does not require a license be issued in order for this relationship to be sanctioned, you are saying it is no longer marriage?
The legislation which WorldWatcher linked clearly states that state sanctioned marriages would continue. It simply changed the way those marriages would be obtained. Here are the opening lines : "To amend Sections 22-9A-17, 30-1-5, 30-1-12, 30-1-13, and 30-1-16 of the Code of Alabama 1975, to abolish the requirement that a marriage license be issued by the judge of probate and replace existing state statutory marriage law with a statutory contract for marriage; to provide that a marriage would be entered into by contract; to provide that the judge of probate would record each contract of marriage presented to the probate court for recording and would forward the contract to the Office of Vital Statistics; to provide for the content of a properly executed contract of marriage; to confirm the continued existence of common law marriage in Alabama; and to repeal Sections 30-1-9, 30-1-10, 30-1-11, and 30-1-14 of the Code of Alabama 1975.". Note it talks about how state sanctioned marriages would be entered into, not that ending the licensing process would end state sanctioned marriage.
You are so funny and typical of the gay rights bunch. Here is a resolve that gives you everything you claim to want with the exception of the license itself, and all you seem to want is for me to acknowledge acceptance of gay marriage in some way. It's not good enough for you unless you can cram this down my throat and make me accept it. And that's because this is really what this issue has always been about.
Yes, Alabama's legal measure to remove the state from the obligation of sanctioning marriage is going to contain certain legal requirements which the state has to meet in order to comply with the constitution and federal laws in other areas. If the new law didn't cover those things it could be challenged by some liberal goof like you who was butt hurt over not getting your gay marriage license.
So we meet the statutory requirements without endorsing your type of marriage... but that's not good enough for people like you. Nooo... our noses have to be rubbed in it! We have to be made to see that what we did was meaningless and didn't change anything. That the state would still be sanctioning gay marriage even though they are no longer sanctioning any kind of marriage officially.
As for the State acknowledging your gay marriage... If they acknowledge any kind of marriage they have to now include gay marriage according to SCOTUS. There is nothing the State can do about that, or the people of the state. However, there is nothing which says the State must acknowledge any kind of marriage. If there is no State benefit or interest, there is no need for acknowledgement.
And... all of this aside, you can never force me to accept gay marriage.
Homosexuals were divorcing before the recent SCOTUS ruling. There was a case where some state attempted to refuse to allow a gay divorce or some such a while back.
But you have to. That's what the legal status does. You must allow it to adopt and pretend to be parents and you must subsidize it through tax breaks and you must give it all of the concessions that hetero marriages warrant evn though it can't procreate as heteros do.
That's the problem with the distinction of legal homo marriage.
I disagree. Adoption requirements have little to do with marriage. Adoption agencies will still conduct rigorous background and character checks on any couple wishing to adopt. They still retain the authority to make their determinations on any basis they please and are not bound by anti-discrimination laws when it comes to their decisions. Any and all decisions they make regarding adoption are discriminatory, that's the nature of what the process is. You are in fact, discriminating against people on the basis of what kind of parent you think they will make. This isn't service in a restaurant.
As for the rest of your list... we don't have to give tax breaks to couples. We don't have to provide concessions for couples. I bet our government and infrastructure would operate just fine without government recognizing ANY domestic relationship.
Mississippi Is Actually Defending Its Comically Unconstitutional Gay Adoption Ban Mississippi Is Actually Defending Its Comically Unconstitutional Gay Adoption Ban
When I last wrote about Mississippi’s gay adoption ban, I naively speculated that the state might decline to defend its own law in court. After all, Mississippi is the only state in the country that still bars same-sex couples from fostering or adopting children—and, more important, the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decisionclearly outlawed such discriminatory legislation. On Friday, however, I was proved a fool: Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant and Attorney General Jim Hood have elected to defend their ban against marriage equality mastermind Roberta Kaplan’s lawsuit.
Two years before that case, the court declared in United States v. Windsor that the federal gay marriage ban “humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples.” Such a law, the court wrote, also “makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family.” And it “brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples” by denying them access to vital benefits. The court has long held that a law that punishes children in order to express moral disapproval of their parents violates the Equal Protection Clause. In Windsor, the court built upon that logic, holding that the marriage ban’s humiliation of children was one significant reason why it violated “basic due process and equal protection principles.”
Mississippi’s gay adoption ban is even more humiliating and harmful toward children than the federal gay marriage ban was. Children who might otherwise be placed with a loving, same-sex couple are forced to remain orphaned because the state dislikes homosexuality
Trogladyte, just because bad decisions have been continually made and repeated over the past fifty years doesn't make them any less bad decisions.But you have to. That's what the legal status does. You must allow it to adopt and pretend to be parents and you must subsidize it through tax breaks and you must give it all of the concessions that hetero marriages warrant evn though it can't procreate as heteros do.So if you aren't advocating getting rid of civil marriages, what exactly are you saying? You've said something about states no longer sanctioning marriage.....but you've had multiple posters telling you that the sited Alabama law would not get rid of state-sanctioned marriage, it would merely change the way people entered into such a union.
It certainly sounded like you were saying states would get out of marriages altogether, but now you are saying civil marriage will remain? What does it matter if states issue a marriage license or if couples file a form?
Well first of all, I don't care what people here have said, that doesn't really mean anything to me. We can sit here and "say" anything we please. If there is no more marriage license being issued by the state, there is no more sanctioning of marriage by the state. Would people still fill out forms? Sure... people fill out forms all the time for all kinds of things, no one is opposed to form filling out. As long as the state isn't sanctioning marriages, that's all that matters.
I've not argued that this would result in marriage ending. Only state sponsoring of marriage. Again, no one is opposed to people having whatever kind of relationship and calling it whatever they please, they just don't want to be forced to recognize it or have it ordained by the state. If you want to fuck people in the ass and call that marriage, the SCOTUS says you can do that. I don't have to condone it or recognize it as such. And guess what? You're never going to make me accept it as such. You can have all the 5-4 SCOTUS rulings you like, I'm not accepting it.
That's the problem with the distinction of legal homo marriage.
Bubba, parenting and procreation are two different things. I asked this before, and I'm going to keep asking it until I get an answer: Are you opposed to subsidizing heterosexual couples who cant reproduce as a couple and become parents by other means? I will add that individual gay people can reproduce......gay men produce sperm and a lesbian produces an ovum and can carry a child. This whole "reproduction thing is STUPID and just a pathetic excuse for discrimination. Another thing ......everyone who is the guardian of a child-married or single, gay or straight get a tax break FOR THE CHILD. Being married does not automatically result in paying less taxes. How is it possible that you do not know that.
Now here are some of the real people....the human being who you refer to as it:
The number of LGBT-headed families continues to grow, as does our need to secure legal equality, fairness and respect for LGBT parents and to provide environments where all children are welcome, supported and loved. HRC provides current resources that address the many potential paths to parenthood as well as tools for issues facing LGBT-headed families or LGBT youth. Parenting
There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents in 1976. In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have gay or lesbian parents.
Latest statistics from the U.S. Census 2000, the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (2004) include:
http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/gayparents.htm
- An estimated two million LGLB people are interested in adopting.
- An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
- More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
- Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
- Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.
In addition, adoption is legal is 49 states. Generally, acceptance of gay and lesbian adoption has been way out in front of same sex marriage. In some states, it has been occurring for decades.
You say that Alabama is going to stop sanctioning marriages. THEY ARE! You are shown that is untrue, NO IT'S NOT.
Under the proposed legislation Alabama would still have state sanctioned marriages. Let me repeat that in case you somehow didn't understand. Under the proposed law, the one you are touting as a removal of state sanctioned marriage, Alabama would still have state sanctioned marriage.
Adoption used to give priority to hetero, married couples. As demonstrated by the changes over the past forty years, that is the best situation to place a kid in.
Unfortunately, with legal marriage comes equal adoption privilege for homos. My main argument against homo marriage.Adoption used to give priority to hetero, married couples. As demonstrated by the changes over the past forty years, that is the best situation to place a kid in.
And that criteria is not going to change. Adoption agencies are not required to meet equality demands of anyone, the very nature of what they do is discriminatory to the benefit of the child being adopted. Affirmative Action doesn't apply to adoption. Can someone challenge that? I suppose they could... you can challenge anything these days and no telling how the liberal SCOTUS would rule... but as of now, there is no danger of adoption agencies having to dole out children to gay couples in order to be "fair."
Horseshit! As I clearly demonstrated above.Adoption used to give priority to hetero, married couples. As demonstrated by the changes over the past forty years, that is the best situation to place a kid in.
And that criteria is not going to change. Adoption agencies are not required to meet equality demands of anyone, the very nature of what they do is discriminatory to the benefit of the child being adopted. Affirmative Action doesn't apply to adoption. Can someone challenge that? I suppose they could... you can challenge anything these days and no telling how the liberal SCOTUS would rule... but as of now, there is no danger of adoption agencies having to dole out children to gay couples in order to be "fair."
