LGBT & ? vs Utah: Legal Arguments at 10th Circuit Begin April 10, 2014

[NYcarbineer]

50% divorce rate (and that's inaccurate) is irrelevant to the fact that most people who get married have children.
If there is a right to marry, then the power to define marriage rests with the states, not unelected judges. Something about they derive their legitimate power from the consent of the goverened.

Of course it's inaccurate, there are no readily available statistics on this as far as I can find. But it's about right. 1st marriage is probably about 40%.

However the divorce rate is high.

Let's compare marriage to divorce. It's not great because people get divorced in different years to when they get married, so stats are always going to be estimates.

Alabama, marriage 9.8 per 1,000 people. Divorce 5.4 per 1,000. That's a divorce rate that's more than 50% the marriage rate.

Some states do have lower than 50%, but in general it's about at the 50% mark. 2 marriages to one divorce. Arizona is closer to 66% for example.


So, now this issue is purely about having children, and not whether the parents stay together for the good of the kids? Hmm.

But then again, the US doesn't have a problem producing children. In fact we should be looking at a reduction in the number of children being born, not an increase.

Our birthrate is barely at replacement rate. We need more kids, not fewer.
THe divorce rate is a red herring, irrelevant to this discussion.

How does allowing same sex marriage result in fewer kids? Do most gay people turn straight, get married, and start having children once they realize that gay marriage is not legal?

lol, where do you people get these ideas?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The other thread is 117 pages & as arguments proceed, will likely turn into 300 or more....so..

Alabama, 9 States Join Utah Bid to Save Gay-Marriage Ban

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana and five other states said they support Utah’s bid to reverse a lower-court ruling that overturned its ban on same-sex marriages as momentum increases to send the issue for another review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 10 states jointly filed legal arguments supporting Utah’s position today in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver. The filing was signed by attorneys general for the states, all of whom are Republicans, including those for Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma and South Carolina.

The states supporting Utah “have an interest in protecting state power to adhere to the traditional definition of marriage,” according to the filing...

...The appeals court ...scheduled oral arguments for April 10 Alabama, 9 States Join Utah Bid to Save Gay-Marriage Ban - Bloomberg

Calling it a "gay marriage ban" is a misnomer also. It is not limited to excluding JUST gays. "marriage is only legal between one man and one woman" excludes many other people than just gays... Many other people are also excluded because....


The thing is that marriage is not a right. It is a privelege. And as it turns out, making it a privelege directly benefits children, who are those most affected by and reliant upon the word and legal institution called "marriage".

[I will leave out of this OP a discussion of who the LGBT church looks up to and venerates as their iconic sex leaders. That alone is a topic for an entire other discussion that is also related to the wellbeing of children.]

Cult members of the church of LGBT [& ??] are not the only people denied marriage in the several states. Minors are. Polygamists are. Adult incest couples are. The grounds for denying are, respectively, a temporary disqualification [age], a disqualification on pluralism in marriage [a behavior], and genetic. For all the times you see LGBTers rant about how Loving v Virginia [race] "means gay marriage should be a right", they being behaviors actually have the least claim based on what was going on with Loving. [Genetics] The closest "legal relative" to Loving is incest couples, because they are being denied their consenting love union because of markers on their genes; easily proven in a lab and a blood test.

Marriage is not a right. It is a privelege. LGBT is about behaviors, very odd ones too I might add. Marriage is, among other things, society's way of stamping its approval on what a family should be. Not what it will always wind up to be, because circumstances sometimes dictate some families fall short of the mark [barreness, divorce, widowhood]. It is a standard society sets that entices people to strive towards it as best they can. Driving isn't a right in most states either. You have to show you can see and that you have the basic physical makeup to operate the pedals and follow the rules of the road. Does every driver drive perfectly every time? No. But if they don't, various headaches of falling short spur them to strive for the acme even more diligently. The point is we have a basic framework of hoops to qualify people before they are licensed to drive. And society has good reasons for this.

Society has a right to define its important functions, like marriage, or driving. It has a right to exclude certain people from those functions in order to maintain their integrity and in the best interest for those most affected by marriage: children. Allowing same sex couples to marry would hurt Utah in the sense as they've argued, that over time, their population would decline and the man/woman nuclear family would dissolve into a legal-precedent free for all [insert "consenting adults" here]; which ultimately hurts children. Utah has a vested interest in preserving the idea of marriage as a privelege, and not a right. And those that benefit the most from this preservation are the children. Being born to one's natural mother and natural father insures that those most natural protective reptilian instincts [speaking of "born that way"] of a natural parent of their natural child are set out as the acme of marriage. Introducing a level of dissonance to that ideal that eradicates one or the other of the natural parents from the equation [same sex marriage] attacks the ideal in such a fundamental way that the word "marriage" and what its best use is, ceases to exist.

That's why the barn door will open and the slippery legal slope is real. Once you allow this fundamental assault on children, by removing the icon of their natural parents being that which is strived [rewarded: marriage & benefits] for, you remove the incentive for two natural parents who are genetically the most protective of their offspring, to unite together for the best sake of their children. Men and women who marry and are barren are allowed because they still adhere to the ideal that others like them will succeed at. ie: their being uniquely one man and one woman does not interfere with the Gold Standard where one man and one woman does result in chilldren. ie: they don't sully the legal definition and best description of marriage which results most often in natural children born to both parents.

Do you think a law that denied gays the right to a driver's license would be constitutional?

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course it's inaccurate, there are no readily available statistics on this as far as I can find. But it's about right. 1st marriage is probably about 40%.

However the divorce rate is high.

Let's compare marriage to divorce. It's not great because people get divorced in different years to when they get married, so stats are always going to be estimates.

Alabama, marriage 9.8 per 1,000 people. Divorce 5.4 per 1,000. That's a divorce rate that's more than 50% the marriage rate.

Some states do have lower than 50%, but in general it's about at the 50% mark. 2 marriages to one divorce. Arizona is closer to 66% for example.


So, now this issue is purely about having children, and not whether the parents stay together for the good of the kids? Hmm.

But then again, the US doesn't have a problem producing children. In fact we should be looking at a reduction in the number of children being born, not an increase.

Our birthrate is barely at replacement rate. We need more kids, not fewer.
THe divorce rate is a red herring, irrelevant to this discussion.

How does allowing same sex marriage result in fewer kids? Do most gay people turn straight, get married, and start having children once they realize that gay marriage is not legal?

lol, where do you people get these ideas?

It doesn't.
Next.

 

[OKTexas]

your arguments are weak and your understanding of Griswold non-existent. While Griswold did state there is a zone of privacy around the marital relationship, that was to protect it FROM government and FROM religious zealots who would ban contraception.

The case you SHOULD be looking at, which you seem to have intentionally ignored, was Loving v Virginia which DID state that marriage is a fundamental right. That means in order to restrict such right, government has to have an overriding interest. As in Loving, bigotry is not an overriding interest.

Bigotry is not an overriding interest, correct, biology on the other hand is a different story. The government would have no interest in blessing unnatural biologic unions.

Government has no compelling interest to not recognize marriage equality, none.

You folks still ignoring the science of it all, why is that?

 

[KNB]

What science are you referring to, Christian? Please indulge us.

 

[The Rabbi]

What science are you referring to, Christian? Please indulge us.

Kids better off in two-parent families

Oops.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What science are you referring to, Christian? Please indulge us.

Kids better off in two-parent families

Oops.

Imagine that, two parents, and incomes, better than one. I'll bet three and four are even better eh? yep.

 

[OKTexas]

What is "other than equality"? What are gay and lesbian couples asking for beyond a legally recognized marriage?

In what way does gay marriage threaten your freedom?

They want the right to do something the rest of us don't have.
If marriage can mean anything, then it means nothing. People will marry their dogs. People will marry their brothers.

Consenting adults.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "consenting adults". I want you to google the phrase "consenting adults". Then I want you to read about the phrase "consenting adults" as it relates to contract law. Then you can come back and tell us why your post was wrong thanks to the phrase "consenting adults" as it relates to contract law.

Now, can we finally stop suggesting that gay marriage will lead to people marrying their dog?

How would a guy marrying his dog be any less biological incompatible than him marrying another guy? So if you're good with one why not both?

 

[The Rabbi]

They want the right to do something the rest of us don't have.
If marriage can mean anything, then it means nothing. People will marry their dogs. People will marry their brothers.

Consenting adults.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "consenting adults". I want you to google the phrase "consenting adults". Then I want you to read about the phrase "consenting adults" as it relates to contract law. Then you can come back and tell us why your post was wrong thanks to the phrase "consenting adults" as it relates to contract law.

Now, can we finally stop suggesting that gay marriage will lead to people marrying their dog?

How would a guy marrying his dog be any less biological incompatible than him marrying another guy? So if you're good with one why not both?

He wouldn't.
But before anyone thinks it's some weird sexual deviency consider that in bankruptcy marital property is privileged. So a guy facing bankruptcy might marry his dog to get those benefits, if that were allowed. Or he could marry his college roomate, even though both are straight. And he can do that now in several states.
It makes a mockery of marriage. No question. That is exactly its intent.

 

[KNB]

24-hr drive-through wedding chapels make a mockery of marriage but those are perfectly okay?

Also, still, why are you a fan of RuPaul if you hate gay people so much?

 

[OKTexas]

What science are you referring to, Christian? Please indulge us.

Go back and read the fucking thread dumb ass. It's call biology.

 

[The Rabbi]

24-hr drive-through wedding chapels make a mockery of marriage but those are perfectly okay?

Also, still, why are you a fan of RuPaul if you hate gay people so much?

Because 24 hour chapels are the norm and most people get married there, right?
Another straw man/red herring point.
Dismissed.

Why do you hate RuPaul? He's fabulous!

 

[KNB]

Gay people are biological creations, proven by the fact that there have been gay people in every culture across the globe since the beginning of civilization.

Alexander the Great was bi-sexual, Theodore Roosevelt wore a dress until he was 6 years old, J Edgar Hoover wore a dress as an adult, and RuPaul is a gay man dressed up like a woman. There were gay Greeks who created democracy, gay Egyptians and Chinese who created writing and mathematics, gay artists, musicians, teachers, leaders, etc. throughout time on every continent.

How is homosexuality not biological?

 

[The Rabbi]

Gay people are biological creations, proven by the fact that there have been gay people in every culture across the globe since the beginning of civilization.

Alexander the Great was bi-sexual, Theodore Roosevelt wore a dress until he was 6 years old, J Edgar Hoover wore a dress as an adult, and RuPaul is a gay man dressed up like a woman. There were gay Greeks who created democracy, gay Egyptians and Chinese who created writing and mathematics, gay artists, musicians, teachers, leaders, etc. throughout time on every continent.

How is homosexuality not biological?

*<-----------Point

(..)<---------Your head.

Get it?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gay people are biological creations, proven by the fact that there have been gay people in every culture across the globe since the beginning of civilization.

Alexander the Great was bi-sexual, Theodore Roosevelt wore a dress until he was 6 years old, J Edgar Hoover wore a dress as an adult, and RuPaul is a gay man dressed up like a woman. There were gay Greeks who created democracy, gay Egyptians and Chinese who created writing and mathematics, gay artists, musicians, teachers, leaders, etc. throughout time on every continent.

How is homosexuality not biological?

Boys wore frocks then. They were considered to be Gender Neutral. That could often be as late as their first real haircut, around age seven. Look it up.

 

[The Rabbi]

And by the way, all toddlers wore essentially dresses up to the 1930s. I have pics of my father wearing one.

 

[KNB]

24-hr drive-through wedding chapels make a mockery of marriage but those are perfectly okay?

Also, still, why are you a fan of RuPaul if you hate gay people so much?

Because 24 hour chapels are the norm and most people get married there, right?
Another straw man/red herring point.
Dismissed.

Oh, so now if only a few people do it, that doesn't mean that ALL marriages are a bunch of crap? If only a few people do it, it doesn't represent the majority? Is that what you're saying? Why don't you Conservatives apply that logic to homosexuals when you say that one gay Democrat was caught with child porn so therefore ALL gay people are child molesters?

You don't have any problem with two drunks getting married in 5 minutes without even turning down the radio? That's the "sanctity" of traditional marriage, huh?

Why do you hate RuPaul? He's fabulous!

I don't hate RuPaul. Answer the question. If you are a fan of RuPaul then why do you hate gay people so much? You are actually proposing laws which would prohibit RuPaul from benefiting from a legally recognized marriage, so why do you claim to like him if you're shitting all over his lifestyle?

 

[The Rabbi]

I had no idea RuPaul wanted to get married. Or are you hoping for a chance?

 

[KNB]

Why do you claim to like RuPaul if you hate gay people?

 

[OKTexas]

Gay people are biological creations, proven by the fact that there have been gay people in every culture across the globe since the beginning of civilization.

Alexander the Great was bi-sexual, Theodore Roosevelt wore a dress until he was 6 years old, J Edgar Hoover wore a dress as an adult, and RuPaul is a gay man dressed up like a woman. There were gay Greeks who created democracy, gay Egyptians and Chinese who created writing and mathematics, gay artists, musicians, teachers, leaders, etc. throughout time on every continent.

How is homosexuality not biological?

It's psychological, as in mental disorder. you know where the brain disagrees with the biology of the body.