Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[JoeB131]

Do you even know what an RFRA does?

Yes, it allows assholes to ignore laws they don't like if they can make up a reason it makes an Imaginary Sky Fairy cry.

 

[World Savior]

Quite the wall of text there Skylar. Let me know when you want to discuss how all children in gay homes are missing either a father or a mother; and why should the state incentivize that situation?

50% of straight marriages end in divorce. Seems like that causes more homes with a missing parent than gays having children through means like adoption, artificial insemination or surrogacy.

Yet we don't hear you ranting about that in dozens of threads.

Homophobes say a child is better served by a mother and a father. When reminded that 50% of kids grow up in single family households, the homophobes have no answer to that dilemma. They do not have any activists pounding the streets to take away 50% of the kids growing up in single family households. Yet they will go out of their way to prevent gays from adopting children. Homophobes fear 2-mom-households, but not 1-mom-households, also known as a single-parent family.

 

[Silhouette]

Homophobes say a child is better served by a mother and a father. When reminded that 50% of kids grow up in single family households, the homophobes have no answer to that dilemma. They do not have any activists pounding the streets to take away 50% of the kids growing up in single family households. Yet they will go out of their way to prevent gays from adopting children. Homophobes fear 2-mom-households, but not 1-mom-households, also known as a single-parent family.

The answer is not to institutionalize children born from wedlock, that's for sure.. Nor is it to institutionalize a lack of either a father or mother "as married" 100% of the time to the kids involved.

People opposed to so-called "gay marriage" are people who want kids to have both a mother and a father in the home. Your logic is flawed. Your conclusions aren't related to your premise.

Here's your argument in a nutshell:

Premise:

"Gay marriage should be legitimate because it's good for kids"

Conclusion:

"Even though kids not having both their natural parents present is something everyone should try to avoid, I want to institutionalize all kids involved in "gay marriage" to be missing either a father or a mother."

 

[World Savior]

Homophobes say a child is better served by a mother and a father. When reminded that 50% of kids grow up in single family households, the homophobes have no answer to that dilemma. They do not have any activists pounding the streets to take away 50% of the kids growing up in single family households. Yet they will go out of their way to prevent gays from adopting children. Homophobes fear 2-mom-households, but not 1-mom-households, also known as a single-parent family.

The answer is not to institutionalize children born from wedlock, that's for sure.. Nor is it to institutionalize a lack of either a father or mother "as married" 100% of the time to the kids involved.

People opposed to so-called "gay marriage" are people who want kids to have both a mother and a father in the home. Your logic is flawed. Your conclusions aren't related to your premise.

Here's your argument in a nutshell:

Premise:

"Gay marriage should be legitimate because it's good for kids"

Conclusion:

"Even though kids not having both their natural parents present is something everyone should try to avoid, I want to institutionalize all kids involved in "gay marriage" to be missing either a father or a mother."

Nope you need to stop twisting my words.

I said nothing of the words you put in my mouth. So please don't do it.

I said using the homophobe logic: If two parent heterosexual couples are important to kids, then why don't the homophobes object to single parent households? If two parents are good, then one parent is not good.

You know what I was trying to say, so sorry the SCOTUS is going to legalize gay marriage. I can't wait to see how many homophobes will commit suicide he day GM is legalized.

 

[Silhouette]

..If two parent heterosexual couples are important to kids, then why don't the homophobes object to single parent households? If two parents are good, then one parent is not good.

You know what I was trying to say, so sorry the SCOTUS is going to legalize gay marriage. I can't wait to see how many homophobes will commit suicide he day GM is legalized.

1. It's not just that two parents are important, it is their biological/psychological makeup that is also important. Never before in human history have we legitimized a woman standing in "as father" to a child, or a man standing in "as mother" to a child.

2. Charming that you would wish people opposed to so-called "gay marriage" to commit suicide. Your sentiments about your fellow men are noted for the record. If children were opposed to gay lifestyles would you want them to also commit suicide?

 

[Syriusly]

Quite the wall of text there Skylar. Let me know when you want to discuss how all children in gay homes are missing either a father or a mother; and why should the state incentivize that situation?

Let us know when you want to discuss why you want to harm the children of homosexual couples.

 

[Syriusly]

..If two parent heterosexual couples are important to kids, then why don't the homophobes object to single parent households? If two parents are good, then one parent is not good.

You know what I was trying to say, so sorry the SCOTUS is going to legalize gay marriage. I can't wait to see how many homophobes will commit suicide he day GM is legalized.

1. It's not just that two parents are important, it is their biological/psychological makeup that is also important. Never before in human history have we legitimized a woman standing in "as father" to a child, or a man standing in "as mother" to a child.

And we still are not.

We legitimize a child having 1 mother or 2 mothers.

Curiously you only object when there are two parents of 1 gender- not when the child only has 1

 

[Syriusly]

Homophobes say a child is better served by a mother and a father. When reminded that 50% of kids grow up in single family households, the homophobes have no answer to that dilemma. They do not have any activists pounding the streets to take away 50% of the kids growing up in single family households. Yet they will go out of their way to prevent gays from adopting children. Homophobes fear 2-mom-households, but not 1-mom-households, also known as a single-parent family.

The answer is not to institutionalize children born from wedlock, that's for sure.. Nor is it to institutionalize a lack of either a father or mother "as married" 100% of the time to the kids involved.

People opposed to so-called "gay marriage" are people who want kids to have both a mother and a father in the home. Your logic is flawed.

'logic flawed'?

That is every one of your posts

Preventing a gay couple from marrying doesn't magically make children have both a mother and a father- it only ensures that if the gay couple has children- that those children don't have married parents.

Preventing gay couples from marrying only harms their children.

It doesn't help any children.

 

[World Savior]

..If two parent heterosexual couples are important to kids, then why don't the homophobes object to single parent households? If two parents are good, then one parent is not good.

You know what I was trying to say, so sorry the SCOTUS is going to legalize gay marriage. I can't wait to see how many homophobes will commit suicide he day GM is legalized.

1. It's not just that two parents are important, it is their biological/psychological makeup that is also important. Never before in human history have we legitimized a woman standing in "as father" to a child, or a man standing in "as mother" to a child.

2. Charming that you would wish people opposed to so-called "gay marriage" to commit suicide. Your sentiments about your fellow men are noted for the record. If children were opposed to gay lifestyles would you want them to also commit suicide?

You need to practice further your art of straw man obfuscation. I didn't wish kids to commit suicide. But if you want to put words in my mouth, I won't stop you.

What's your bulllshit about psychological makeup? A dad could be psycho killer, mom could be a drug addict whore. How's that better than two loving gay men raising little kids? It doesn't matter what we've done in the history. Why do you accept single parents and not two moms? You need to evolve. We accepted earth was flat before it became clear it is not. I don't give a shit about what we did in the history. It is necessary for us to respect gay rights.

Again, are you planning to jump off a bridge when SCOTUS legalizes GM? If yes, can I take a cell phone video of your jump and post on my YouTube channel?

 

[Skylar]

Homophobes say a child is better served by a mother and a father. When reminded that 50% of kids grow up in single family households, the homophobes have no answer to that dilemma. They do not have any activists pounding the streets to take away 50% of the kids growing up in single family households. Yet they will go out of their way to prevent gays from adopting children. Homophobes fear 2-mom-households, but not 1-mom-households, also known as a single-parent family.

The answer is not to institutionalize children born from wedlock, that's for sure.. Nor is it to institutionalize a lack of either a father or mother "as married" 100% of the time to the kids involved.

People opposed to so-called "gay marriage" are people who want kids to have both a mother and a father in the home. Your logic is flawed. Your conclusions aren't related to your premise.

Your positions are conflicting. You don't want children out of wedlock. Yet you want to forbid parents you don't like from getting married. Eliminate the latter, and you lessen the former.

Worse, denying gay marriage doesn't produce any of the benefits you speak of. If same sex parents aren't allowed to marry, their children still have same sex parents. But they'll never have married parents. Which hurts these kids and helps no one.

Your proposal literally does nothing but hurt kids and rob same sex couples of their rights. It doesn't help a single child.

No thank you.

 

[Silhouette]

..If two parent heterosexual couples are important to kids, then why don't the homophobes object to single parent households? If two parents are good, then one parent is not good. ...You know what I was trying to say, so sorry the SCOTUS is going to legalize gay marriage. I can't wait to see how many homophobes will commit suicide he day GM is legalized.

1. It's not just that two parents are important, it is their biological/psychological makeup that is also important. Never before in human history have we legitimized a woman standing in "as father" to a child, or a man standing in "as mother" to a child.

2. Charming that you would wish people opposed to so-called "gay marriage" to commit suicide. Your sentiments about your fellow men are noted for the record. If children were opposed to gay lifestyles would you want them to also commit suicide?

What's your bulllshit about psychological makeup? A dad could be psycho killer, mom could be a drug addict whore. How's that better than two loving gay men raising little kids?...

The exceptions to the rule of who can be married and why are not going to govern the rule. The rule is that children need BOTH a mother and a father to adjust socially and eventually to the larger social society they will one day belong to. There may be the exceptional nearly-blind driver who can navigate the roads with amazing ability; but that doesn't mean we lower the bar to accept him or any other blind or nearly blind person as "the new rule of who can drive".. We generalize because that's a smart idea over all.

 

[Silhouette]

Homophobes say a child is better served by a mother and a father. When reminded that 50% of kids grow up in single family households, the homophobes have no answer to that dilemma. They do not have any activists pounding the streets to take away 50% of the kids growing up in single family households. Yet they will go out of their way to prevent gays from adopting children. Homophobes fear 2-mom-households, but not 1-mom-households, also known as a single-parent family.

The answer is not to institutionalize children born from wedlock, that's for sure.. Nor is it to institutionalize a lack of either a father or mother "as married" 100% of the time to the kids involved.

People opposed to so-called "gay marriage" are people who want kids to have both a mother and a father in the home. Your logic is flawed. Your conclusions aren't related to your premise.

Your positions are conflicting. You don't want children out of wedlock. Yet you want to forbid parents you don't like from getting married. Eliminate the latter, and you lessen the former...

I don't want to forbid as much as I want to qualify who society is forced to lose money on the incentivizing of what it means to be married. The REASON why states lose money on marriage at all is because of children. Otherwise, a state has no fiscal reason for giving tax breaks to married people. If we know (and we do, in spades) that a child's best formative environment is having BOTH a father AND a mother, then that is the arrangment states incentivize. If they want to try homes where either vital gender is institutionalized as missing, they can vote to try that experiment out using kids as lab rats in a venture that social scientists have already assured us is a bad idea.

Like Kennedy said, the other 35 states will watch and see what happens and then vote on it. We aren't talking about race. We're talking about behaviors. Which legally makes all the difference in the world when it comes to your next contention about "rights and priveleges..." etc. etc. You don't even have a true cohesive definition for all the potential sexual orientations that may qualify under the wide wide umbrella of "LGBT". That moniker, for all practical purposes, is a quagmire that nobody even within its own ranks agrees 100% upon. Therefore, it's very hard to sell what is de facto a cult, as a race, deserving of special consideration as to the 14th Amendment.

 

[Skylar]

I don't want to forbid as much as I want to qualify who society is forced to lose money on the incentivizing of what it means to be married. The REASON why states lose money on marriage at all is because of children. Otherwise, a state has no fiscal reason for giving tax breaks to married people. If we know (and we do, in spades) that a child's best formative environment is having BOTH a father AND a mother, then that is the arrangment states incentivize. If they want to try homes where either vital gender is institutionalized as missing, they can vote to try that experiment out using kids as lab rats in a venture that social scientists have already assured us is a bad idea.

Your argument breaks again. Three times. First, denying marriage helps no child and hurts 10s of thousands. Why incentivize gay marriage? One reason would be the 10s of thousands of children it benefits.

Second, study after study has shown that the children of same sex parents are fine. So the idea that same sex parents can't provide a safe, healthy and loving home is demonstratably bullshit.

Third, marriage doesn't require children. Not one straight couple is required to have kids or be able to. So why incentivize gay marriage? Another reason would be the exact same reason you incentivize all the straight couples who never have children. Why then would we exclude gays from marriage based on a criteria that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

Obviously, we wouldn't. There's no part of this scenario where your argument doesn't fail.

Like Kennedy said, the other 35 states will watch and see what happens and then vote on it. We aren't talking about race. We're talking about behaviors. Which legally makes all the difference in the world when it comes to your next contention about "rights and priveleges..." etc. etc.

The USSC has on 3 separate occasions protected gays and lesbians from discriminatory laws. And in those cases, cited 4 different racial discrimination cases when describing why discrimination against gays was invalid. You insist that being gay isn't protected. The USSC has refuted you repeatedly.

In a contest of legality, you citing you is meaningless. The USSC citing previous USSC rulings is authoritative.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SILHOUETTE SAID:

“We aren't talking about race. We're talking about behaviors. Which legally makes all the difference in the world when it comes to your next contention about "rights and priveleges..." etc. etc.”

Wrong.

No one has made the argument that gay Americans constitute a suspect class of persons, nor has the Supreme Court made any such holding; the Court has consistently held, however, that gay Americans constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, including that of the 14th Amendment and substantive due process – in particular the right to make personal choices with regard to the conduct of one's life absent unwarranted interference by the state; where the right to make decisions about whom to love or whom to marry are immune from attack by government. (Lawrence v. Texas)

Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant; the right to make choices about one's life, the right to personal autonomy and self-determination, is a fundamental protected liberty afforded all Americans, including gay Americans.

 

[Silhouette]

No one has made the argument that gay Americans constitute a suspect class of persons, nor has the Supreme Court made any such holding; the Court has consistently held, however, that gay Americans constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, including that of the 14th Amendment and substantive due process – in particular the right to make personal choices with regard to the conduct of one's life absent unwarranted interference by the state; where the right to make decisions about whom to love or whom to marry are immune from attack by government. (Lawrence v. Texas)

Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant; the right to make choices about one's life, the right to personal autonomy and self-determination, is a fundamental protected liberty afforded all Americans, including gay Americans.

The phrase "gay American" is physically and legally-equivalent to "bulimic American".

Both are about behaviors. And behaviors in and of themselves, even cult practicing those behaviors, do not constitute a class. Only in the broadest sense as in "mentally-ill Americans". That is the class that both belong to. Neither gets it's own special sub-class.

Start with that premise and move forward from it and no other; because no other applies. It turns out that it is very legally-relevant if it is a chosen or habitual behavior; particularly when you fold in the Harvey Milk worship factor. Then marriage, which is about children, does not automatically become legally bestowed upon them without the consent of the governed/guardians of orphaned kids. It turns out the etiology behind the behaviors seeking special status and priveleges is EVERYTHING to this particular question of law: since kids are the paramount concern of it.

You would agree that kids are the most important entities in marriage, right?

In short, your argument is "look the other way, don't look under the surface of our behaviors, just give us that legal access to orphans that we want so badly. And if you don't, we'll call you "haters"...or worse.."

 

[Skylar]

No one has made the argument that gay Americans constitute a suspect class of persons, nor has the Supreme Court made any such holding; the Court has consistently held, however, that gay Americans constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, including that of the 14th Amendment and substantive due process – in particular the right to make personal choices with regard to the conduct of one's life absent unwarranted interference by the state; where the right to make decisions about whom to love or whom to marry are immune from attack by government. (Lawrence v. Texas)

Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant; the right to make choices about one's life, the right to personal autonomy and self-determination, is a fundamental protected liberty afforded all Americans, including gay Americans.

The phrase "gay American" is physically and legally-equivalent to "bulimic American".

I'm not aware of a Supreme Court decision forbidding discrimination against 'bulimic Americans'. But Romer v. Evans specifically protects gays from discrimination. Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you?

Remember, when you start babbling about 'legally', you have no idea what you're talking about. As you're just making your shit up as you go along.

Both are about behaviors. And behaviors in and of themselves, even cult practicing those behaviors, do not constitute a class. Only in the broadest sense as in "mentally-ill Americans". That is the class that both belong to. Neither gets it's own special sub-class.

Religion is a behavior. Speech is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Yet the folks that engage in each still have rights. Your 'behavior' standard is pseudo-legal gibberish. Gays are protected from discrimination. Says who? Says the Supreme Court.

And the Supreme Court is more authoritative than your pseudo-legal babble on issues of the law.

Start with that premise and move forward from it and no other; because no other applies. It turns out that it is very legally-relevant if it is a chosen or habitual behavior; particularly when you fold in the Harvey Milk worship factor. Then marriage, which is about children, does not automatically become legally bestowed upon them without the consent of the governed/guardians of orphaned kids. It turns out the etiology behind the behaviors seeking special status and priveleges is EVERYTHING to this particular question of law: since kids are the paramount concern of it.

Marriage isn't a privilege. Its a fundamental right. Says who? Says the Supreme Court.

Just because you ignore the Supreme Court doesn't mean the Court is going to ignore itself. Your willful ignorance of any precedent you don't like is gloriously irrelevant to the process of adjudication.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You would agree that kids are the most important entities in marriage, right?

No, and seek professional help before the Supreme Court rules against you. You'll need it.

 

[Skylar]

You would agree that kids are the most important entities in marriage, right?

No, and seek professional help before the Supreme Court rules against you. You'll need it.

Yeah, June is going to be rough for Sil.

Especially considering all the 'personal costs' Sil insisted that posting costs him. So much so that he it was effecting his health and he had to leave the board.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm not aware of a Supreme Court decision forbidding discrimination against 'bulimic Americans'. But Romer v. Evans specifically protects gays from discrimination....

Bulimics might organize and insist that vomit urns be put on restaurant tables. Currently, restaurants only accomodate "straight" eating-orientations. Forcing bulmics into the bathroom to vomit after eating is belittling and hateful to them. Further, bulimia-orientation isn't illegal in any state that I know of. Yet they continue to be discriminated against at restaurants nationwide. What kind of a bigoted nation are we?

 

[Skylar]

I'm not aware of a Supreme Court decision forbidding discrimination against 'bulimic Americans'. But Romer v. Evans specifically protects gays from discrimination....

Bulimics might organize and insist that vomit urns be put on restaurant tables.

And they might not. Your pointless speculation is irrelevant to the fact that the Supreme Court has specifically protected gays from discrimination in Romer v. Evans.

You ignore the Romer ruling and make up whatever you'd like. And.....so what? Ignoring the USSC on relevant caselaw when Kennedy himself wrote it is just an act of pointless self deception. Its not like Kennedy is going to ignore *himself* on the matter just because you close your eyes and pretend that Romer v. Evans never happened.

This is the pointless part of your perspective, Sil. What is, is. Romer v. Evans is. Kennedy writing it is. The likelihood of Kennedy overturning Romer, the very ruling he wrote is essentially zero.

Any rational perspective must accommodate these facts. And yours cannot, instead fleeing into the comforting pablum of your own personal opinoin on what the Supreme Court 'oughta' rule, rather than what precedent strongly indicates they will.