US Supreme Court to Meet This Week To Decide To Take Up Gay Marriage Debate/Case

[Syriusly]

but that doesn't mean that alternative lifestyle has to therefore "become sanctioned in marriage for the sake of the children!".. How silly.

The state doesn't control the individuals involved in marriage, only the structure. And they do so for the sake of children.

Which is why children deserve marriage

Just as Justice Kennedy points out

"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?

The only children harmed by 'gay marriage' are those children of gay parents that you want to deny marriage to.

 

[Skylar]

You have to be honest about why a state would incentivize ANY marriage. It is to form that structure into which a state expects children to arrive naturally, by adoption, fostering or grandparenting. It provides that vital complimentary gendered role model structure that children of both sexes may look up to for a source of self-esteem and learning about how to integrate into society best that is filled with both genders.

If marriage is about children, why then do the childless couples receive all the same benefits as those with children? What of all the infertile couples that allowed to marry or remain married? And why, pray tell, is no one required to have children or be able to have children in order to get married?

The standard you insist we use to exclude gays from marriage doesn't exist and applies to no one.

Males and females engage in mating. That the mating is sterile doesn't interfere with the biological urge of males and females to mate. Homosexuals do not engage in mating. They are biologically incapable of mating.

Then how do you explain all the kids that gays and lesbians have? 40,000 in California alone. I'm friends with a lovely lesbian couple the next town over. She's pregnant with her second child. So I'm pretty sure the kid is hers.

And how do gays interfere with the 'biological urge of males and females to mate'? Gays have existed through out recorded history. And yet there has been all sorts of fucking going on. And plenty of kids.

Of course childless couples do not receive the same benefits as those with children. They don't get to claim tax deductions, they don't qualify for earned income tax credits.

Yeah, but the earned income tax credits don't follow marriage. They follow the kid. You can be single or divorced and get the same earned income tax credits.

Marriage is a completely different set of benefits. And they exist regardless of children.

They do not distribute inheritance to children they don't have. A poor childless couple does not qualify for the same HUD housing benefits as someone with children.

Distributing inheritance to children again has nothing to do with marriage. You can be single and distribute interference to children.

Marriage is again, a completely different set of benefits. And these benfits exist regardless of children.

The standard that should be applied is whether the behavior is aberrational enough to justify withholding of legal recognition. Once aberrational behavior is accepted as normal, it doesn't stop with homosexuality anymore than encouraging divorce stopped with just legions of divorced people and their disadvantaged and dysfunctional children.

Why would we exclude gays from marriage? And how do you define 'aberrational enough'. That seems a rather subjective standard.

 

[Silhouette]

Nope...read again:

Of course childless couples do not receive the same benefits as those with children. They don't get to claim tax deductions, they don't qualify for earned income tax credits. They do not distribute inheritance to children they don't have. A poor childless couple does not qualify for the same HUD housing benefits as someone with children.
The standard that should be applied is whether the behavior is aberrational enough to justify withholding of legal recognition. Once aberrational behavior is accepted as normal, it doesn't stop with homosexuality anymore than encouraging divorce stopped with just legions of divorced people and their disadvantaged and dysfunctional children.

Nope, that's too close to a police state. The state is only involved therefore in incentivizing the best structure for childrearing...and that structure most promising to be welcoming children into its midst. That would be the formative environment where children get the vital benefit of interaction daily with both complimentary genders "as parent" to insure their most well-rounded transition into adulthood and as future citizens who arent' winding up indigent, in jails or in mental institutions.

A state has a right to set incentives for this privelege of raising children. Of course, children can be raised by wolves, but that doesn't mean that alternative lifestyle has to therefore "become sanctioned in marriage for the sake of the children!".. How silly.

The state doesn't control the individuals involved in marriage, only the structure. And they do so for the sake of children. If a sterile man/woman want to marry then they can, because they do not violate the structure and the state is perennially-anticipating that natural, adoptive, fostered or grandparented children will come into that sterile midst at some point. In fact, a sterile, married hetero couple are the perfect candidates for qualifying for adoption, that is so dearly needed to provide father/mother homes that are best for kids..so the State would do well to incentivize that too.

 

[Skylar]

Nope...read again:

Of course childless couples do not receive the same benefits as those with children. They don't get to claim tax deductions, they don't qualify for earned income tax credits. They do not distribute inheritance to children they don't have. A poor childless couple does not qualify for the same HUD housing benefits as someone with children.
The standard that should be applied is whether the behavior is aberrational enough to justify withholding of legal recognition. Once aberrational behavior is accepted as normal, it doesn't stop with homosexuality anymore than encouraging divorce stopped with just legions of divorced people and their disadvantaged and dysfunctional children.

Nope, that's too close to a police state. The state is only involved therefore in incentivizing the best structure for childrearing...and that structure most promising to be welcoming children into its midst.

If that were the case, then why don't the benefits of marriage follow the birth of children, like the earned income tax credit? Instead, they apply regardless of if you have children or not. Or even if you're not able to have kids.

There are states that require certain people to prove they CAN'T have kids before they can marry. Kicking the crap out of the 'procreation only' purpose in marriage.

And then there's all the infertile couples, the old couples, the childless that can be married or remain married. Demonstrating elegantly that there's a perfectly valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children.

And finally, no one is required to have children or be able to have them in order to be married. No one. Why then would we exclude gays based on their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist in any law and applies to no one?

There is no reason.

A state has a right to set incentives for this privelege of raising children. Of course, children can be raised by wolves, but that doesn't mean that alternative lifestyle has to therefore "become sanctioned in marriage for the sake of the children!".. How silly.

Not if those standards violate constitutional guarantees. And especially not when the LACK of marriage harms the very children you're attempting to benefit. As the courts have found denying marriage to same sex couples inflicts such harm upon their children.

The courts have never found that same sex marriage harms children.

The state doesn't control the individuals involved in marriage, only the structure.

The blood tests states required or require in order to get married say otherwise. The requirement to prove infertility that certain couples are held to in some states says otherwise. The State has a long history of exactly such control. If procreation were the singular purpose of marriage, they could and would require fertility among couples that marry. Or they would revoke marriage benefits for those who don't have children. Or can't.

Yet no state does, nor ever has. Demonstrating yet again that the standards you insist we exclude gays under simply don't exist in any law. Nor apply to anyone.

 

[Silhouette]

You're a genius. Of course the benefits of marriage follow adherence to the state-defined structure. That's how incentives work...IDIOT.

Did you not read how the state gains from incentivizing even sterile man/woman marriages? Go back and READ my post instead of skimming it..

A state has zero interest in incentivizing a formative environment for child-raising that is minus both genders 100% of the time. Children come in both genders and need role models. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out the psychological angle.

 

[Skylar]

You're a genius. Of course the benefits of marriage follow adherence to the state-defined structure. That's how incentives work...IDIOT.

The same argument was made by those that banned interracial marriage. The problem is....the structure itself has to meet constitutional muster. And as virtually every federal court ruling to adjudicate the matter has found, the 'structure' of gay marriage bans fail such a test.

 

[Silhouette]

The problem is that lifestyles and race have nothing whatsoever to do with each other Skylar...That premise has been killed, buried and had a eulogy ages ago. Try to keep up?

I think the divide in this debate is going to boil down into two camps, even at the Supremes level:

1. Those who think and believe that children are a secondary consideration, possessions of adults and merely a peripheral consideration in the marriage debate; who must adjust their psyches and adapt to any new conditions that the Court may impose by mandating states to allow new lifestyles (all of them, remember "equality" wears a blindfold) into the marriage structure privelege. They will seek a federally-imposed unstructured definition of marriage as a "right".. and

2. Those who think and believe that children are a primary consideration in marriage and that their formative environment is vital to examine. These folks will lean heavily on reams of child-developmental psychology manuals, research and data, single-parent home statistics (to study the effects of the children missing their own gender as a parental role model). They will insist that children are equal beings to adults in the respect of needing consideration of their minds and development as vital and important to society; that they play the central role in any society. They will be pushing the Supremes to allow the widest amount of voices possible to weigh in on any crucial modifications of this vital environment where children grow and thrive. Their reasoning will be that the more voices possible, the less likely some insidious agenda might sneak in through just a few, overworked judges who sometimes in truth, skim vital issues when they ought to pay more attention to them.. They will seek state-defined structure of marriage as a privelege.

 

[Syriusly]

2. Those who think and believe that children are a primary consideration in marriage and that their formative environment is vital to examine. These folks will lean heavily on reams of child-developmental psychology manuals, research and data, single-parent home statistics (to study the effects of the children missing their own gender as a parental role model). They will insist that children are equal beings to adults in the respect of needing consideration of their minds and development as vital and important to society; that they play the central role in any society.

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?

 

[Silhouette]

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?

Syriusly....
There is an immediate legal injury to children of polygamists and those raised also by wolves...would you that Kennedy also apply his logic towards those relationships to "the benefit of children"? Or are you prejudiced against the children of polygamists and wolves? And what about the tens of millions of children currently disenfranchised from marriage by their monosexual parents not getting the benefits of marriage? After all, single parent households are psychological twins to gay households in that they both are missing the complimentary gender vital to best child development.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Syriusly....
There is an immediate legal injury to children of.

Well have that strawman discussion with Justice Kennedy.

I am sure that he will find it as fascinating as I do....

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?

 

[Silhouette]

Well have that strawman discussion with Justice Kennedy.

I am sure that he will find it as fascinating as I do....

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?

Syriusly....
There is an immediate legal injury to children of polygamists and those raised also by wolves...would you that Kennedy also apply his logic towards those relationships to "the benefit of children"? Or are you prejudiced against the children of polygamists and wolves? And what about the tens of millions of children currently disenfranchised from marriage by their monosexual parents not getting the benefits of marriage? After all, single parent households are psychological twins to gay households in that they both are missing the complimentary gender vital to best child development.

 

[Skylar]

Well have that strawman discussion with Justice Kennedy.

I am sure that he will find it as fascinating as I do....

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?

Syriusly....
There is an immediate legal injury to children of polygamists and those raised also by wolves...would you that Kennedy also apply his logic towards those relationships to "the benefit of children"? Or are you prejudiced against the children of polygamists and wolves? And what about the tens of millions of children currently disenfranchised from marriage by their monosexual parents not getting the benefits of marriage? After all, single parent households are psychological twins to gay households in that they both are missing the complimentary gender vital to best child development.

Can we take it from your stark refusal to discuss same sex marriage or the views of harm to children held by the court and Kennedy.....that your arguments aren't working out terribly well?

You'll talk about polygamy. You'll talk about 'monosexual parents'. But you've flatly abandoned the discussion of same sex marriage.

What a difference a day makes, eh buddy?

 

[Silhouette]

They are legally-inseperable; as Justice Sotomayor alluded to in her questioning of attorney Ted Olson in March 2013. So when I talk about polygamy marriage and monosexual marriage benefits 'for the sake of children in immediate legal harm' (Kennedy), I'm also talking about gay marriage..

And you're going to find that out at the next hearing. It is impossible to tease one lifestyle apart from the other as "more important" or "sigificantly different...based on sexual kinks..." ie: why don't those children also matter with respect to "immediate legal harm"?...

Good luck!

 

[deltex1]

So what's the bottom line here...do we buy lubricant stocks or not?

 

[Silhouette]

So what's the bottom line here...do we buy lubricant stocks or not?

No, but you should probably get a good healthcare plan. The CDC has reported that just in the same years this new "gay marriage" trend has been pushed through the courts, HIV has taken an astronomical leap in young boys ages 13-24. Mistaking a fad/lifetyle as "race" can have real and concrete consequences in homo sapiens as it turns out...Monkey see-monkey do...

Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.

• Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010. CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS

 

[bodecea]

So what's the bottom line here...do we buy lubricant stocks or not?

No, but you should probably get a good healthcare plan. The CDC has reported that just in the same years this new "gay marriage" trend has been pushed through the courts, HIV has taken an astronomical leap in young boys ages 13-24. Mistaking a fad/lifetyle as "race" can have real and concrete consequences in homo sapiens as it turns out...

Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.

• Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010. CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS

We lesbians need to watch out for you infectious heteros.

 

[mdk]

So what's the bottom line here...do we buy lubricant stocks or not?

The market doesn't seem right at this moment to buy. Gays will be having less sex now they are getting married, making lube a very risky investment indeed. I suggest a portfolio heavy in clutching pearls, smelling salts, and, fainting couches.

 

[Silhouette]

So what's the bottom line here...do we buy lubricant stocks or not?

The market doesn't seem right at this moment to buy. Gays will be having less sex now they are getting married, making lube a very risky investment indeed. I suggest a portfolio heavy in clutching pearls, smelling salts, and, fainting couches.

You're that certain the Supremes will change their minds on their heavy emphasis in Windsor 2013 on states-deliberation, in favor of federally-mandating states to incentivize formative environments for kids where the complimentary gender is missing 100% of the time? And also federally-mandaing states to allow polygamy and any other type of sexual orientation in the interest of "marriage equality"?

Remember Sotomayor's question:

“Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and -- and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked... Ted Olson Prohibiting Polygamy Not Like Prohibiting Same-Sex Marriage CNS News

Fainting couches may be needed...but don't be so sure it will be for states' citizens deliberating on which lifestyles to incentivize to raise children for their best shot at life...

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

So Silhouette...

There are 5 cases scheduled for tomorrow's (January 9th) conference. What is your official prediction of what the outcome of the conference: Accept the Writ(s), Reject the Writ, or Carry Over the cases to a later conference.

With your statements about Baker and Windsor - what do you think the court will do?


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

>

So Silhouette...

There are 5 cases scheduled for tomorrow's (January 9th) conference. What is your official prediction of what the outcome of the conference: Accept the Writ(s), Reject the Writ, or Carry Over the cases to a later conference.

With your statements about Baker and Windsor - what do you think the court will do?


>>>>

No idea.. The Court has been very weird about the entire thing from start to now. Just don't be so sure missing-gender marriages and polygamy etc. have the federally-forced mandate in the bag..