SCOTUS signals upcoming historic approval for gay marriage

[Dana7360]

You clearly have a point you're trying to make. Can you just get to it?

If marriage is not one man/one woman (just two consenting adults), then what is the harm in two brothers marrying each other? Or two sisters? Or even a mother and daughter, father and son? Shouldn't they be allowed to take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage? Isn't that the whole point of ssm anyway? Because ss couples can not take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage if they can't marry?

The financial benefits are only part of it.

They also get the benefit of being able to see their spouse in the hospital. They get to make decisions about the spouse if the spouse can't do that for themselves. They automatically inherit all of their spouses property when that spouse dies and there is no will. Their children are automatically their legal children at birth or when they adopt. One spouse in a gay couple has to adopt the child of their spouse even though that child was born while they were together.

Those are just a few of the benefits that us heterosexuals take for granted that gay couples are denied in 13 of our 50 states.

 

[Dana7360]

Do some research on who pushed for war with Japan and Germany...

Germany declared war on us before we declared it on Germany. As did Japan.

Japan attacked AFTER the US and England committed economic terrorism against Japan,Japan had no choice but to attack...the US also was helping England against Germany instead of being Neutral like they were supposed to be. The US had unofficially declared war on both Japan and Germany LONG before Germany or Japan officially declared war on the US.

Do some research on who pushed for war with Japan and Germany...

That would be Japan who attacked the United States and Germany which declared war on the United States.

I have done my research, not just spent my time on anti-semite websites.

Japan attacked AFTER the US and England committed economic terrorism against Japan,Japan had no choice but to attack..

'no choice'?

Sure Japan had a choice- it could have chosen not to attack Pearl Harbor.

No one forced Japan to attack- pure revisionist history- Japan was waging a brutal war against China- and the United States restricted trade to Japan because of that- something that states have the right to do.

You keep believing that drivel...people with rocks for brains shouldn't hurt themselves trying to think or use their head for more than a hat rack.

Dude, we have every right to levy an embargo on a nation for any reason we wish. The Japanese absolutely had a choice. They could have stopped their attacks in mainland china and we would have lifted the embargo.

Japan instead wanted an empire, similar to what the British had created. We opposed them with embargos. They tried to pull another Port Arthur over the objections of their own naval commanders. And they lost.

No part of this was inevitable or unavoidable. With the initiating actor of the conflict being Japan.

I would have to assume that the right winger believes that the over 50 year embargo of Cuba was terrorism and Cuba has a right to invade or attack America for it.

 

[Syriusly]

[
But the worst and most insidious rationale with respect to the title of this thread is "the children of gay households are in immediate legal harm" It at once fools the Justices into thinking that your camp is eager to consider the welfare of kids; while at the same time it lulls the Court into thinking "we've covered the bases on the question of children's interest in this conversation..

That 'worst' and 'insidious' rational you are speaking of would be that of Justice Kennedy

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he 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?"

And Justice Kennedy is both rational and has a vote in the decision- you have neither.

 

[Silhouette]

But the worst and most insidious rationale with respect to the title of this thread is "the children of gay households are in immediate legal harm" It at once fools the Justices into thinking that your camp is eager to consider the welfare of kids; while at the same time it lulls the Court into thinking "we've covered the bases on the question of children's interest in this conversation..

That 'worst' and 'insidious' rational you are speaking of would be that of Justice Kennedy

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he 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?"

Is that pre or post Prince's Trust Kennedy? Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I wonder how many more years America will have to put up with Mr. Thomas.

We are going to replace him with Sarah Palin when the honorable Justice retires.

Yet another good reason to not vote republican.

 

[Skylar]

But the worst and most insidious rationale with respect to the title of this thread is "the children of gay households are in immediate legal harm" It at once fools the Justices into thinking that your camp is eager to consider the welfare of kids; while at the same time it lulls the Court into thinking "we've covered the bases on the question of children's interest in this conversation..

That 'worst' and 'insidious' rational you are speaking of would be that of Justice Kennedy

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he 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?"

Is that pre or post Prince's Trust Kennedy? Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

When does the prince study mention same sex parenting or their children? It doesn't. You made it up.

Remember just because you make shit up doesn't mean the rest of us can see it.

 

[Skylar]

You can choose to parade naked down main street too, and apparently your cult does this liberally in front of kids as a matter of sober "pride". Your freedom of choice and fully protected litigious army of LGBT lifestylists may enjoy many rights; but subjecting childrens' formative environment (marriage) to those choices is not one of your rights.

What does gay pride have to do with gay marriage? It would be like insisting that because college kids in Fort Lauderdale shake their asses, that straight people shouldn't be allowed to be married.

Its a silly argument.

Your rights end where they allude to infringing upon the rights of children. And that is, legally, because children are the least potent class in the marriage conversation: they cannot vote.

Yeah, but only 'harm to children' is in denying gay marriage. None has ever been legally recognized by recognizing it. So the very basis of your argument would mandate that gay marriage be legalized.

Which seems to be direction that the kids are leaning toward as well.

But the worst and most insidious rationale with respect to the title of this thread is "the children of gay households are in immediate legal harm" It at once fools the Justices into thinking that your camp is eager to consider the welfare of kids; while at the same time it lulls the Court into thinking "we've covered the bases on the question of children's interest in this conversation....so as a result we are denying stays/Deciding the case early in advance of the Hearing on the merits, in favor of the cult of LGBT".

Um, this 'cult' idiocy is just you citing yourself. Communities don't have rights. People do. And if you're going to deny a gay person the right to same sex marriage, you'd better have a reason specific to that person.

Not whatever imaginary 'cult' you've made up.

It ignores the 100s of millions of kids to be born into the future under the ramifications of the Prince's Trust survey on kids lacking their gender as an adult role model. It also ignores federal court procedures and legality itself..even the fundamentals of democracy the the limitations of the powers of the US Supreme Court.

The kids are going to be born to gays and lesbians anyway. All denying marriage does is guarantee that they'll never have married parents. Which hurts those children.

And the Prince Trust study doesn't measure anything you claim it does. Nor have a thing to say about same sex parents or their children. And we're not going to inflict immediate legal harm on hundreds of thousands of children based on your imagination of 'future doom'. Especially when you've got jackshit to back up your latest apocalypse fantasy.

Try again. This time with a little less willful ignorance and a little less fantasy. Maybe a lot less.

 

[Inevitable]

They were already eligible to marry.

It changes the definition of what marriage has been in America.

So?

Why shouldn't two brothers be allowed to marry and take advantage of the benefits? Two consenting adults, hurting no one.

Sounds like you have some parades to organize. Best of luck.

Changing the definition opens the door. For example:

Please explain why two brothers, two consenting adults, shouldn't be allowed to marry. To take advantage of the benefits. How will that harm you?

It will harm our law and justice system.

It's against the law to marry a direct relative. It has been illegal since before I was born. You'll have to wait until either the laws are rewritten or a court strikes it down for being unconstitutional.

You better start saving your pennies now. The legal fees will be extremely high. You better not be toward the end of your life because it's going to take decades to change it, if it's possible.

This crap is just an attempt to justify being against same sex marriage.

Nobody in this planet believes we have to forbid same sex marriage to prevent siblings marrying each other. It's kind of silly when you look at it that way huh?

 

[Syriusly]

But the worst and most insidious rationale with respect to the title of this thread is "the children of gay households are in immediate legal harm" It at once fools the Justices into thinking that your camp is eager to consider the welfare of kids; while at the same time it lulls the Court into thinking "we've covered the bases on the question of children's interest in this conversation..

That 'worst' and 'insidious' rational you are speaking of would be that of Justice Kennedy

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he 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?"

Is that pre or post Prince's Trust Kennedy? Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Since you haven't sent the Supreme Court the "Prince's Trust Survey- why would Justice Kennedy have read it?

That 'worst' and 'insidious' rational you are speaking of would be that of Justice Kennedy

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he 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?"