Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[Silhouette]

Society being forced to approve of promoting the homosexual culture via marriage is unacceptable. That's my argument. And for all the reasons I've stated; for there are many. The skyrocketing rate in new HIV cases of monkey-see monkey-do "gay" youth is one of those excellent reasons to object.

Sons not having fathers and daughters not having mothers as a new forced-institution (by just 5 people in DC) is also wholly unacceptable. Marriage is an institution that no matter what the proposed radical redaction, MUST have the input of society; since it is society that this redaction is most poised to alter forever.

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

The ones protecting adult or children's rights? Pretty sure the latter trumps.

Here's an accredited child of a gay parenting situation all grown up who agrees with me on that point. Read her open letter to Justice Kennedy about why she feels you can love a gay parent and be against gay marriage. Sound a little familiar to you? It does to me. Someone's been reading USMB methinks..

Here's an excerpt:

We are just the tip of the iceberg of children currently being raised in gay households. When they come of age, many will wonder why the separation from one parent who desperately mattered to them was celebrated as a “triumph of civil rights,” and they will turn to this generation for an answer....What should we tell them?
Katy Faust serves on the Academic and Testimonial Councils of the International Children’s Rights Institute and writes at asktheBigot.com. She is the mother of four, the youngest of whom was adopted from China.

Dear Justice Kennedy An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent Public Discourse

 

[Skylar]

Society being forced to approve of promoting the homosexual culture via marriage is unacceptable. That's my argument. And for all the reasons I've stated; for there are many. The skyrocketing rate in new HIV cases of monkey-see monkey-do "gay" youth is one of those excellent reasons to object.

Sons not having fathers and daughters not having mothers as a new forced-institution (by just 5 people in DC) is also wholly unacceptable. Marriage is an institution that no matter what the proposed radical redaction, MUST have the input of society; since it is society that this redaction is most poised to alter forever.

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

The ones protecting adult or children's rights? Pretty sure the latter trumps.

Denying marriage has nothing to do with 'children's rights'. As denying marriage to a lesbian couple doesn't mean that their children magically have opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that these children never have married parents.

Which helps no child. And causes immediately legal harm to 10s of thousands.

Hurting children is not protecting children, Sil. No matter how you try and spin it.

Gay parenting and gay marriage are not inherently connected. As you don't need to be married to have kids. A fact demonstrated elegantly by the 10s of thousands of children that gays and lesbians already had before their marriages were recognized.

Worse, you've already told us you're not concerned about the 10s of thousands of children your proposals directly hurt. Simply destroying your claim that your fighting for 'children's rights'. Your proposals benefit no child. And cause immediate legal harm to tens of thousands.

Again, no thank you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Society being forced to approve of promoting the homosexual culture via marriage is unacceptable. That's my argument. And for all the reasons I've stated; for there are many. The skyrocketing rate in new HIV cases of monkey-see monkey-do "gay" youth is one of those excellent reasons to object.

Sons not having fathers and daughters not having mothers as a new forced-institution (by just 5 people in DC) is also wholly unacceptable. Marriage is an institution that no matter what the proposed radical redaction, MUST have the input of society; since it is society that this redaction is most poised to alter forever.

What is the divorce rate among heterosexual couples?

In CA a father ordered to pay child support cannot renew his Driver's License, or any other State issued License, when behind in child support payments, whether previously married, married and divorced or simply if the child was conceived on a one-night-stand.

A child raised in a single family is arguable better socialized than one raised in a family constantly at war with each other, or when one of the couple is an alcoholic or drug abuser.

Why is it news when a homosexual couple divorce, and not when a heterosexual couple divorce?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Are children better off raised in a series of foster homes or group homes, or placed with a couple committed to each other, notwithstanding their gender? Is it better for a fetus to be aborted, or to reach full term and be adopted by a married homosexual couple?

Why?

 

[g5000]

Well, I said I would come back now and again. So I might as well hang in until June sporadically. Let's see how vigorously the *usual crowd* will spam good points into oblivion, trying to silence the conversation..

We have a couple of questions. 1. The "should the fed mandate gay marriage and silence any opposition" question and 2. The "should the fed allow some people/businesses to refuse to participate in "gay marriages" question. I sort of walk back and forth between the two questions and have a bit more of a discussion about the invisible demographic in all these conversations: children and their spongy, socially-learning minds. It weighs heavily on the future of society as we sit poised, deliberating at such a divergent fork in the social fabric...

That is not the issue before the Court. Your entire OP is one giant false premise.

Denying participation in gay marriage isn't a statement about a race. It's a statement about BEHAVIORS. "I don't want to eat pork" ...where "to eat" is a verb, not a noun. "I don't want to support people who identify with a lifestyle where they have sex with the same gender".....where "they have sex with the same gender" is an action, a verb, not a noun. In contrast African Americans or First Nation People etc. are not verbs. They are nouns. Please learn the legal difference.

I see what you did there.

Sorry, but "homosexual" is a noun, too. Not a verb.

 

[Silhouette]

What is the divorce rate among heterosexual couples?

In CA a father ordered to pay child support cannot renew his Driver's License, or any other State issued License, when behind in child support payments, whether previously married, married and divorced or simply if the child was conceived on a one-night-stand.

A child raised in a single family is arguable better socialized than one raised in a family constantly at war with each other, or when one of the couple is an alcoholic or drug abuser.

Why is it news when a homosexual couple divorce, and not when a heterosexual couple divorce?

Divorce is not something the state is interested in incentivizing for the sake of children. It does so only reluctantly when no other remedy is going to work to preserve the best formative environment for the kids involved. It is unfortunate.

But that doesn't affect the rule that the best marriage for any child is one with a father and a mother. That is the standard. For good reasons.

I see what you did there.
Sorry, but "homosexual" is a noun, too. Not a verb.

"Torrodor" is also a noun that describes a verb. It a person who fights bulls in an arena. People are not born as torrodors. They learn it. It is a behavior..

 

[Silhouette]

Are children better off raised in a series of foster homes or group homes, or placed with a couple committed to each other, notwithstanding their gender? Is it better for a fetus to be aborted, or to reach full term and be adopted by a married homosexual couple?

Why?

Given some of the Mayo Clinic's findings and CDC surveys, I'm not going to touch the "place the unwanted kiddie in a gay home" thing with a 10-foot pole in this particular thread. Wouldn't want a bunch of you to start threatening suicide..again... (you really have to wonder if the Justices read the literature?)

That being said, unwanted children come from the destruction of marriage at its core, no-fault divorce and a general disrespect for the institution that has been growing over the last four decades.

You don't enhance respect for the millenial-old institution by saying "mothers or fathers are no longer necessary in a child's life". Gay marriage would be the final mockery of the instituiton. Not one soul would take it seriously thereafter. Not if they were given truth serum prior to asking..

You are on the right trail though, in the very very broadest sense over the largest span of time, children should be the main and final focus in this decision, ultimately..

 

[Syriusly]

Society being forced to approve of promoting the homosexual culture via marriage is unacceptable. That's my argument..

Okay- that is a stupid and bigoted argument.

 

[Syriusly]

Are children better off raised in a series of foster homes or group homes, or placed with a couple committed to each other, notwithstanding their gender? Is it better for a fetus to be aborted, or to reach full term and be adopted by a married homosexual couple?

Why?

Given some of the Mayo Clinic's findings..

What "Mayo Clinic's findings?

There are no "Mayo Clinic's finding's regarding homosexuality- just another of your lies.

 

[Syriusly]

What is the divorce rate among heterosexual couples?

In CA a father ordered to pay child support cannot renew his Driver's License, or any other State issued License, when behind in child support payments, whether previously married, married and divorced or simply if the child was conceived on a one-night-stand.

A child raised in a single family is arguable better socialized than one raised in a family constantly at war with each other, or when one of the couple is an alcoholic or drug abuser.

Why is it news when a homosexual couple divorce, and not when a heterosexual couple divorce?

Divorce is not something the state is interested in incentivizing for the sake of children. It does so only reluctantly when no other remedy i.

You keep making that claim- yet there is no evidence to support your claims- no fault divorce is the most common divorce law in the land.

 

[Syriusly]

Society being forced to approve of promoting the homosexual culture via marriage is unacceptable. That's my argument. And for all the reasons I've stated; for there are many. The skyrocketing rate in new HIV cases of monkey-see monkey-do "gay" youth is one of those excellent reasons to object.

Sons not having fathers and daughters not having mothers as a new forced-institution (by just 5 people in DC) is also wholly unacceptable. Marriage is an institution that no matter what the proposed radical redaction, MUST have the input of society; since it is society that this redaction is most poised to alter forever.

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

The ones protecting adult or children's rights? Pretty sure the latter trumps.

Here's an accredited child of a gay parenting situation all grown up who agrees with me on that point.

Here is a Supreme Court Justice who is actually concerned about children's rights- who agrees with me on that point- and disagrees with you.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children,"[Justice Kennedy] 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?"

 

[Silhouette]

Here is a Supreme Court Justice who is actually concerned about children's rights- who agrees with me on that point- and disagrees with you.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children,"[Justice Kennedy] 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?"

Oh, wasn't that from Windsor? Are you saying the Court's position on Windsor should be the final weighing of the matter?

Do you suppose that Kennedy will be thinking of his line of questioning last month or 2 years ago on this case?

 

[Syriusly]

Here is a Supreme Court Justice who is actually concerned about children's rights- who agrees with me on that point- and disagrees with you.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children,"[Justice Kennedy] 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?"

Oh, wasn't that from Windsor? Are you saying the Court's position on Windsor should be the final weighing of the matter?

Do you suppose that Kennedy will be thinking of his line of questioning last month or 2 years ago on this case?

I am thinking that Justice Kennedy is concerned about the immediate legal injury to children whose parents are being denied marriage.

Unlike you, who do not care about the injury to children as long as you can use them to attack homosexuals.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Hi guys, I'm a faggot. I love having men stick their dicks in my ass, so they can pull it out allowing me to lick my own shit off of it.

If you're disgusted by my lifestyle choice, then you are a white racist bible thumping gun clinging woman hating child abusing poor bashing christian male homophobe.

 

[Skylar]

Are children better off raised in a series of foster homes or group homes, or placed with a couple committed to each other, notwithstanding their gender? Is it better for a fetus to be aborted, or to reach full term and be adopted by a married homosexual couple?

Why?

Given some of the Mayo Clinic's findings and CDC surveys, I'm not going to touch the "place the unwanted kiddie in a gay home" thing with a 10-foot pole in this particular thread. Wouldn't want a bunch of you to start threatening suicide..again... (you really have to wonder if the Justices read the literature?)

But neither the Mayo Clinic nor the CDC say what you claim they do. You insist they claim that the most homosexuals were sexually abused. Neither source you've offered say this. And one of the Mayo Clinic studies you offered us wasn't about gays. It was about pedophiles. You intentionally misrepresented all three studies.

Why? Anyone who agrees with you doesn't care what your sources say. And the folks that that you're trying to convince will realize in about 30 seconds that you lied your ass off about your studies, ruining your credibility. And its not like we are going to let your lies pass without comment.

What is your purpose in misrepresenting your sources? It doesn't forward your argument in any way.

You don't enhance respect for the millenial-old institution by saying "mothers or fathers are no longer necessary in a child's life". Gay marriage would be the final mockery of the instituiton. Not one soul would take it seriously thereafter. Not if they were given truth serum prior to asking..

Gay marriage in some states has been legal for 10 years. There's no appreciable difference in marriage rates caused by gay marriage. Massachusetts has virtually the same marriage rate now as it did 10 years ago. This while the national average has declined. Gay marriage actually helps maintain maintain falling marriage rates. Not erode them. Exactly opposite of your claims.

There is exactly nothing supporting your argument. And 10 years worth of evidence explicitly contradicting you. And you'll ignore all of it.

But why would a rational person ignore what you do?

You are on the right trail though, in the very very broadest sense over the largest span of time, children should be the main and final focus in this decision, ultimately..

Denying gay marriage doesn't help any child. And actively harms 10s of thousands. If children were your focus, why would you ever do this?

 

[Skylar]

Here is a Supreme Court Justice who is actually concerned about children's rights- who agrees with me on that point- and disagrees with you.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children,"[Justice Kennedy] 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?"

Oh, wasn't that from Windsor? Are you saying the Court's position on Windsor should be the final weighing of the matter?

Do you suppose that Kennedy will be thinking of his line of questioning last month or 2 years ago on this case?

Actually the Windsor decision stated that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. But as you always do, you explicitly and consistently omit any mention of constitutional guarantees in the Windsor decision.

Just because you ignore constitutional guarantees doesn't mean that the courts are going to do the same.

 

[Silhouette]

I am thinking that Justice Kennedy is concerned about the immediate legal injury to children whose parents are being denied marriage.

You mean the children of polygamists or incest? Or does Justice Kennedy "hate" those children to deny them the benefits of their parents having marriage?

 

[Skylar]

I am thinking that Justice Kennedy is concerned about the immediate legal injury to children whose parents are being denied marriage.

You mean the children of polygamists or incest? Or does Justice Kennedy "hate" those children to deny them the benefits of their parents having marriage?

The questions before the court have nothing to do with incest or polygamy. But same sex marriage. It seems your 'closing argument' was to abandon your topic.

Good. It demonstrates how little your claims have to do with same sex marriage.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of Article 4, Section 2 or its State equivalents; advisory counsel for this Cause, rest their Case.

 

[Silhouette]

Can you expound on that daniel?