Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[elektra]

Are you stating that Homosexual couples are more willing than Heterosexual couples to raise handicapped children?

I don't know if he is, but I am saying it...because it's true.

An October 2011 report by Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found that, of gay and lesbian adoptions at more than 300 agencies, 10 percent of the kids placed were older than 6 — typically a very difficult age to adopt out. About 25 percent were older than 3. Sixty percent of gay and lesbian couples adopted across races, which is important given that minority children in the foster system tend to linger. More than half of the kids adopted by gays and lesbians had special needs.

It is true based on an Article, you are joking.

First and foremost, to make the point you contend you quoted the wrong portion of your, "article". The portion you erroneously quoted speaks strictly of the percentages of specific groups of children adopted, not if the "gays and lesbians" were more willing to adopt a special need child.

Do you read you links, I do.

And why bother quoting an article that is reporting from their biases and prejudices, why quote the article when the article gives you the name of the study or institute.

In replying I will check you article, I will find the study, and read it, at that point I will have a better understanding of your source than you have displayed.

Now go quote the right part.

 

[Seawytch]

Are you stating that Homosexual couples are more willing than Heterosexual couples to raise handicapped children?

I don't know if he is, but I am saying it...because it's true.

An October 2011 report by Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found that, of gay and lesbian adoptions at more than 300 agencies, 10 percent of the kids placed were older than 6 — typically a very difficult age to adopt out. About 25 percent were older than 3. Sixty percent of gay and lesbian couples adopted across races, which is important given that minority children in the foster system tend to linger. More than half of the kids adopted by gays and lesbians had special needs.

It is true based on an Article, you are joking.

First and foremost, to make the point you contend you quoted the wrong portion of your, "article". The portion you erroneously quoted speaks strictly of the percentages of specific groups of children adopted, not if the "gays and lesbians" were more willing to adopt a special need child.

Do you read you links, I do.

And why bother quoting an article that is reporting from their biases and prejudices, why quote the article when the article gives you the name of the study or institute.

In replying I will check you article, I will find the study, and read it, at that point I will have a better understanding of your source than you have displayed.

Now go quote the right part.

Can you provide an article showing that more than half of heterosexuals raise special needs children? Are you too lazy to click on links within the article?

 

[Seawytch]

Who is forcing a child into a 'homosexual lifestyle'? What does that even mean? And what significance does you 'saying' something have with reality?

Do you think Homosexuals do not live a Homosexual lifestyle? Your opinion seems a bit unhinged from, "reality".

What does the 'homosexual lifestyle' entail? Having a job? Spending time with family? Going out to dinner? Attending weddings and funerals?

And what about it is 'abusive' to children? Your terms are uselessly vague. And the harm to children little more than an accusation you can type.

What does the Homosexual lifestyle entail, Two men living together, loving one another, kissing and holding hands, going to pride parades, meeting other homosexuals, going to funerals of other homosexuals that die of AIDS. explaining to the adopted children what homosexuality means, basically teaching everything they know to children.

I thought you knew what being homosexual meant?

Landover Baptist...

Anyway, here's a glimpse into the "gay lifestyle". Sure you can handle it?

Get up, make coffee. Surf net. Make kids lunch. Take shower. Wake kids. Drop kids at bus. Work. Pick kids up from practice. Go home. Kiss wife. Eat dinner loving prepared by wife. Help with homework. Watch TV. Go to bed. Repeat.

So dangerous.

To bad we'll never meet.... Going to be pretty how where you're going. Bring sunscreen

-Geaux

Ooh, scary. Pulling out the "you're going to hell" card. I don't believe in the existence of hell so you might as well be warning me of anti gay aliens.

 

[elektra]

Like I said, forcing children into a homosexual lifestyle is abuse.

Who is forcing a child into a 'homosexual lifestyle'? What does that even mean? And what significance does you 'saying' something have with reality?

Do you think Homosexuals do not live a Homosexual lifestyle? Your opinion seems a bit unhinged from, "reality".

What does the 'homosexual lifestyle' entail? Having a job? Spending time with family? Going out to dinner? Attending weddings and funerals?

And what about it is 'abusive' to children? Your terms are uselessly vague. And the harm to children little more than an accusation you can type.

What does the Homosexual lifestyle entail, Two men living together, loving one another, kissing and holding hands, going to pride parades, meeting other homosexuals, going to funerals of other homosexuals that die of AIDS. explaining to the adopted children what homosexuality means, basically teaching everything they know to children.

I thought you knew what being homosexual meant?

Landover Baptist...

Anyway, here's a glimpse into the "gay lifestyle". Sure you can handle it?

Get up, make coffee. Surf net. Make kids lunch. Take shower. Wake kids. Drop kids at bus. Work. Pick kids up from practice. Go home. Kiss wife. Eat dinner loving prepared by wife. Help with homework. Watch TV. Go to bed. Repeat.

So dangerous.

Exactly my point, you have denied your "kids" a father.

I feel sorry for you, you are broken and will never ,now, and you will never ever ,now the pain within your children, I can see from your advocacy that you have created an environment in which your, "kids", can not express themselves without hurting you.

Are you the biological mother or is there no real mother in your, "family". No real mother would be a worst case scenario.

Of course I am humoring you, there is no way you have, "kids", I think you are simply a troll, maybe a Eunuch, which reminds me, "In the World of the Seawytch the Eunuch raises the children".

I forgot all about that, now I will simply laugh at you, that was a bit ago, right, "Gender-less Parenting".

In the land of the Seawytch, the Eunuch raises the child.

 

[Geaux4it]

Do you think Homosexuals do not live a Homosexual lifestyle? Your opinion seems a bit unhinged from, "reality".

What does the 'homosexual lifestyle' entail? Having a job? Spending time with family? Going out to dinner? Attending weddings and funerals?

And what about it is 'abusive' to children? Your terms are uselessly vague. And the harm to children little more than an accusation you can type.

What does the Homosexual lifestyle entail, Two men living together, loving one another, kissing and holding hands, going to pride parades, meeting other homosexuals, going to funerals of other homosexuals that die of AIDS. explaining to the adopted children what homosexuality means, basically teaching everything they know to children.

I thought you knew what being homosexual meant?

Landover Baptist...

Anyway, here's a glimpse into the "gay lifestyle". Sure you can handle it?

Get up, make coffee. Surf net. Make kids lunch. Take shower. Wake kids. Drop kids at bus. Work. Pick kids up from practice. Go home. Kiss wife. Eat dinner loving prepared by wife. Help with homework. Watch TV. Go to bed. Repeat.

So dangerous.

To bad we'll never meet.... Going to be pretty how where you're going. Bring sunscreen

-Geaux

Ooh, scary. Pulling out the "you're going to hell" card. I don't believe in the existence of hell so you might as well be warning me of anti gay aliens.

I know, but it is my duty to try... My dad's the same way except he's starting to waffle... The 11th hour is near and even the strongest wonder about 'rolling the dice'

Repent- There's still time

-Geaux

 

[elektra]

Are you stating that Homosexual couples are more willing than Heterosexual couples to raise handicapped children?

I don't know if he is, but I am saying it...because it's true.

An October 2011 report by Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found that, of gay and lesbian adoptions at more than 300 agencies, 10 percent of the kids placed were older than 6 — typically a very difficult age to adopt out. About 25 percent were older than 3. Sixty percent of gay and lesbian couples adopted across races, which is important given that minority children in the foster system tend to linger. More than half of the kids adopted by gays and lesbians had special needs.

It is true based on an Article, you are joking.

First and foremost, to make the point you contend you quoted the wrong portion of your, "article". The portion you erroneously quoted speaks strictly of the percentages of specific groups of children adopted, not if the "gays and lesbians" were more willing to adopt a special need child.

Do you read you links, I do.

And why bother quoting an article that is reporting from their biases and prejudices, why quote the article when the article gives you the name of the study or institute.

In replying I will check you article, I will find the study, and read it, at that point I will have a better understanding of your source than you have displayed.

Now go quote the right part.

Can you provide an article showing that more than half of heterosexuals raise special needs children? Are you too lazy to click on links within the article?

Lazy, you are too lazy to read your "article" let alone quote the correct portion. Just pointing out that you have a very shallow understanding of what you read, given the gross errors in your post. Follow your own links.

I guess you are not going to fix your mistakes, fine with me.

Can I provide an article showing more than half of heterosexuals raise special needs children? Nope, just aint that many special needs kids, more than half of all kids with special needs? That would be millions? Yes?

As I side note, I see that your article left out Eunuchs, that kind of ruins its validity, you know, in The Land of the Seawytch.

 

[kaz]

You've accused Seawitch of all sorts of heinous things based on the idea that she wants tax benefits for being married and supports higher taxes. Well, you support treating single folks the same as married people. If you're married, wouldn't that mandate that you pay the extra taxes that your married status saves you over your single countrymen?

If the standard is idiotic, then perhaps you shouldn't be using it.

Again you argue that a high tax advocating liberal evading taxes is not hypocrisy and a high tax hating libertarian as not paying more taxes than I have to as hypocrisy. You are an idiot, there is no way around that. Take your hand out of your pants and be serious.

 

[kaz]

The point is the discriminator is you, you advocate gays discriminate like straights, that isn't equality.

And how is she advocating discrimination against straights?

 

[kaz]

Where did ACA say it wasn't a tax. Explicitly.

Obama campaign It s a penalty not a tax - POLITICO.com

And Obama's campaign is the law?

You may want to read what you're replying to before posting irrelevancies like that. As the claim in question is that the law itself explicitly said it wasn't a tax.

I'm asking where in the law this is stated.

First of all, after the last post that's hilarious, you want me to "read what I'm replying to."

But as to your point, I know what you asked, you wanted an eight year old standard of defining the question narrowly to get the result you wanted. Obama stating what Obamacare is isn't an "irrelevancy." The hypocrisy of what you would say if a Republican tried your kiddie trick must make even your ass flame.

 

[Seawytch]

I feel sorry for you, you are broken and will never ,now, and you will never ever ,now the pain within your children, I can see from your advocacy that you have created an environment in which your, "kids", can not express themselves without hurting you.

Thanks for sharing your opinion but our children are fine. We communicate very well with our children and they have no problem expressing themselves.

Our 13 year old daughter, after talking to one of her classmates on the phone, came out and thanked us for still loving each other and being married to each other. See, all but one of her best friends come from divorced homes. All of my son's friends have divorced parents and they tell my son all the time that they love coming to our house and love HIS parents. Truly, save your pity for those kids. They're already fucked up from the divorce and their still in their teens.

Are you the biological mother or is there no real mother in your, "family". No real mother would be a worst case scenario.

You're against all adoption? You want kids forever in orphanages? Jesus fucking Christ are you living in Dicken's London?

I gave birth to our children but we are both their parents...legally and emotionally.

Of course I am humoring you, there is no way you have, "kids", I think you are simply a troll, maybe a Eunuch, which reminds me, "In the World of the Seawytch the Eunuch raises the children".

I've given birth to five babies. Two are mine and my wife's and three were for a gay male couple. They used a donor egg and their sperm. I actually believe the twins had two different fathers. Whether you believe in their existence or not, they do exist and they are costing me a fortune. I've got to make a Costco and commissary trip just to feed them for the next week.

I forgot all about that, now I will simply laugh at you, that was a bit ago, right, "Gender-less Parenting".

In the land of the Seawytch, the Eunuch raises the child.

I'm still attributing your misunderstanding to the fact that English is not your native language. I never said gender-less parenting, I said the gender of parents has no bearing on child raising. Children need a nurturer and a structurer for the best outcomes. Which parent provides those does not matter but it is why two parent homes are the ideal.

 

[Seawytch]

Are you stating that Homosexual couples are more willing than Heterosexual couples to raise handicapped children?

I don't know if he is, but I am saying it...because it's true.

An October 2011 report by Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found that, of gay and lesbian adoptions at more than 300 agencies, 10 percent of the kids placed were older than 6 — typically a very difficult age to adopt out. About 25 percent were older than 3. Sixty percent of gay and lesbian couples adopted across races, which is important given that minority children in the foster system tend to linger. More than half of the kids adopted by gays and lesbians had special needs.

It is true based on an Article, you are joking.

First and foremost, to make the point you contend you quoted the wrong portion of your, "article". The portion you erroneously quoted speaks strictly of the percentages of specific groups of children adopted, not if the "gays and lesbians" were more willing to adopt a special need child.

Do you read you links, I do.

And why bother quoting an article that is reporting from their biases and prejudices, why quote the article when the article gives you the name of the study or institute.

In replying I will check you article, I will find the study, and read it, at that point I will have a better understanding of your source than you have displayed.

Now go quote the right part.

Can you provide an article showing that more than half of heterosexuals raise special needs children? Are you too lazy to click on links within the article?

Lazy, you are too lazy to read your "article" let alone quote the correct portion. Just pointing out that you have a very shallow understanding of what you read, given the gross errors in your post. Follow your own links.

I guess you are not going to fix your mistakes, fine with me.

Can I provide an article showing more than half of heterosexuals raise special needs children? Nope, just aint that many special needs kids, more than half of all kids with special needs? That would be millions? Yes?

As I side note, I see that your article left out Eunuchs, that kind of ruins its validity, you know, in The Land of the Seawytch.

Deflection. The point was made. You questioned whether gays and lesbians were more likely to adopt special needs children. I showed you that in fact gays and lesbians are more likely to adopt special needs children.

An October 2011 report by Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found that, of gay and lesbian adoptions at more than 300 agencies, 10 percent of the kids placed were older than 6 — typically a very difficult age to adopt out. About 25 percent were older than 3. Sixty percent of gay and lesbian couples adopted across races, which is important given that minority children in the foster system tend to linger. More than half of the kids adopted by gays and lesbians had special needs.

 

[kaz]

Get off your high horse, you have nothing to be condescending about. You're a hypocrite.

Her position is that same sex couples should have the same access to marriage as straights. With all the benefits that come with marriage.

How then is that hypocritical?

As I said before, they need "liberal reading" for people who can't read well enough to take remedial reading. Here are the things I argued. None of them are what you just said.

1) Her claims she is against discrimination is a lie, she wants discrimination, she just wants to be a discriminator.

2) She's a moron when she calls me a discriminator when I want everyone treated the same and she is against discrimination when she wants citizens treated differently.

3) The "hypocrisy" is that she believes government provides many wonderful benefits and we should have high, progressive tax rates, then she evades them while advocating I pay more when I think government wastes most of the money it collects and I oppose most of what they spend it on.

You may not proceed to continue to not comprehend those.

 

[kaz]

And you are the hypocrite, you want out of the high, progressive taxes you support.

No- it is really you.

You are married and want to deny Seawitch the same benefits you have.

Again you argue that a high tax advocating liberal evading taxes is not hypocrisy and a high tax hating libertarian as not paying more taxes than I have to as hypocrisy. You are an idiot, there is no way around that. Syriusly, take your hand out of your pants and be serious.

 

[kaz]

Right, fuck my ho, it's my way or the highway. I believe we covered this ad nauseum. You aren't ready for heterosexual marriage. You put yourself first. I know you have no long term memory, just re-read the last few pages and you will remember until you forget again.

You are a bigot and an idiot.

And you don't know what marriage really is beyond the paper.

 

[kaz]

And you are demanding that the state require gender specific roles as examples for children.

Two parents can teach the children all they should know about being adults. They can learn how to be good people, loving spouses and loving parents. That their genital match or don't match is not relevant.

And two gay parents can teach the children to stand tall and be proud of who they are. To be true to themselves, despite what hate-mongers and bigots want them to be.

Do you have children? You seriously don't see that men and women, mothers and fathers are different? You don't see the value in a man and a woman being their parents? Another mother would replace you as a father and it would be the same thing? I have a hard time believing you believe that.

 

[Seawytch]

Get off your high horse, you have nothing to be condescending about. You're a hypocrite.

Her position is that same sex couples should have the same access to marriage as straights. With all the benefits that come with marriage.

How then is that hypocritical?

As I said before, they need "liberal reading" for people who can't read well enough to take remedial reading. Here are the things I argued. None of them are what you just said.

1) Her claims she is against discrimination is a lie, she wants discrimination, she just wants to be a discriminator.

2) She's a moron when she calls me a discriminator when I want everyone treated the same and she is against discrimination when she wants citizens treated differently.

3) The "hypocrisy" is that she believes government provides many wonderful benefits and we should have high, progressive tax rates, then she evades them while advocating I pay more when I think government wastes most of the money it collects and I oppose most of what they spend it on.

You may not proceed to continue to not comprehend those.

Tax breaks are tax evasion. You're so funny. Tax deductions are part of a progressive tax system. I got one when I bought my energy efficient refrigerator and wood stove too.

Go ahead and try to get rid of the deductions for being married and having kids. We were together for over a decade before we got the tax breaks. It won't destroy my marriage, I'll still be married and still enjoying the over one thousand rights, benefits and privileges that you enjoy...it would just be minus one.

Good luck storming the castle!

 

[kaz]

She hasn't denied supporting progressive tax rates and I said she supports them many times. Maybe she can clarify that.

Yes, I do support a progressive tax, but I also support your right to try to change it. Our tax system, however, is a completely separate issue from gays having equal access to marriage rights and benefits. You should start a thread on how unfair our tax system is to single people and people without private jets.

Gee, I guess my position on this is completely self serving and hypocritical on my support for high government taxes. What does that have to do with anything? I guess I'm just catching a random and arbitrary benefit there, has nothing to do with the topic, that my position on the topic is hypocritical and self serving.

Yeah.

LOL. the topic of this thread is that you want tax breaks from taxes you support, your hypocrisy is completely topical.

 

[elektra]

Are you stating that Homosexual couples are more willing than Heterosexual couples to raise handicapped children?

I don't know if he is, but I am saying it...because it's true.

An October 2011 report by Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found that, of gay and lesbian adoptions at more than 300 agencies, 10 percent of the kids placed were older than 6 — typically a very difficult age to adopt out. About 25 percent were older than 3. Sixty percent of gay and lesbian couples adopted across races, which is important given that minority children in the foster system tend to linger. More than half of the kids adopted by gays and lesbians had special needs.

It is true based on an Article, you are joking.

First and foremost, to make the point you contend you quoted the wrong portion of your, "article". The portion you erroneously quoted speaks strictly of the percentages of specific groups of children adopted, not if the "gays and lesbians" were more willing to adopt a special need child.

Do you read you links, I do.

And why bother quoting an article that is reporting from their biases and prejudices, why quote the article when the article gives you the name of the study or institute.

In replying I will check you article, I will find the study, and read it, at that point I will have a better understanding of your source than you have displayed.

Now go quote the right part.

Can you provide an article showing that more than half of heterosexuals raise special needs children? Are you too lazy to click on links within the article?

Lazy, you are too lazy to read your "article" let alone quote the correct portion. Just pointing out that you have a very shallow understanding of what you read, given the gross errors in your post. Follow your own links.

I guess you are not going to fix your mistakes, fine with me.

Can I provide an article showing more than half of heterosexuals raise special needs children? Nope, just aint that many special needs kids, more than half of all kids with special needs? That would be millions? Yes?

As I side note, I see that your article left out Eunuchs, that kind of ruins its validity, you know, in The Land of the Seawytch.

Deflection. The point was made. You questioned whether gays and lesbians were more likely to adopt special needs children. I showed you that in fact gays and lesbians are more likely to adopt special needs children.

An October 2011 report by Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found that, of gay and lesbian adoptions at more than 300 agencies, 10 percent of the kids placed were older than 6 — typically a very difficult age to adopt out. About 25 percent were older than 3. Sixty percent of gay and lesbian couples adopted across races, which is important given that minority children in the foster system tend to linger. More than half of the kids adopted by gays and lesbians had special needs.

You really have no comprehension skills, do you. I am not expecting an answer, beings because of the comprehension thing, so don't hurt yourself.

Deflection? I never questioned whether gays and lesbians were more likely to adopt special needs children, I asked somebody a question to clarify their post in case I misunderstood what they were stating.

You are that dumb. And I guess I am as well for not questioning your first post with a "what the hell are you talking about"?

I got to remember you do not read, not your links, not your articles, not your studies, I just assumed you actually read the posts you respond to, stupid me.

 

[Seawytch]

And you are demanding that the state require gender specific roles as examples for children.

Two parents can teach the children all they should know about being adults. They can learn how to be good people, loving spouses and loving parents. That their genital match or don't match is not relevant.

And two gay parents can teach the children to stand tall and be proud of who they are. To be true to themselves, despite what hate-mongers and bigots want them to be.

Do you have children? You seriously don't see that men and women, mothers and fathers are different? You don't see the value in a man and a woman being their parents? Another mother would replace you as a father and it would be the same thing? I have a hard time believing you believe that.

The value is in having two parents. Nurturer and structurer...as the studies have shown. Our children, raised by same sex parents, are at no disadvantage.

Can you explain what parenting has to do with civil marriage? One is not required for the other.

 

[kaz]

Single people aren't denied access to them if they marry, gays are. If you don't buy a house, you don't get the credit. If you don't buy energy efficient appliances you don't get the tax credit. If you don't own a private jet you don't get the private jet credit. Start a flat tax thread.

You want the high taxes, you are a flaming hypocrite to turn around and evade them. Why just because you paired off should you not pay the taxes you advocate other people pay? Doing things like getting family insurance rates is one thing, but you don't pay the taxes you stick on other people. That is just flat out hypocrisy. I advocate low taxes, I don't think singles should pay higher taxes, but I don't think I should either.

She wants to be treated legally exactly the same as you and your wife are.

You oppose that.

That is what your argument boils down to.

Ding, ding, ding!!!! We have a winner!

Strawman. I want us treated equally also. I want everyone treated equally. You don't want that.

Your little tax issue is separate from the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage. Take away the tax breaks...gays will still want civil marriage and you'll still want to deny it.

Marriage Rights and Benefits
Learn some of the legal and practical ways that getting married changes your life.

• Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
• Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
• Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
• Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.
• Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
• Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
• Receiving public assistance benefits.
• Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
• Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
• Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
• Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
• Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
• • Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
  • Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
  • Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
  • Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
  • Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
  • Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
  • Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

"rights, privileges and benefits" you deny straights, bigot