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

[Syriusly]

[
Well, I'm daring to consider it and I hope SCOTUS is too..

It is not daring to fantasize about what you hope the Supreme Court will do.

 

[Silhouette]

1. Do you think that allowing same sex couples to marry will lead to many more same sex couples existing, or more same sex couples having/adopting children? 2. Do you think that 'depriving a child of his own gender as parental role model' is the only, or even the most important, difference between a single parent household and a married, heterosexual parents household? 3. Do you start any threads on this message board that don't focus on homosexuality?

1. Yes, because in case you haven't noticed, lifestyles ingrained in a society's core have a funny way of catching on...Monkey see, monkey do. In just the same years as the big media push on gay marriage/all things "gay"...

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

Children grow up to be adults. Do the math. It seems that inappropriate role models do have a direct harm to children..

2. I think that depriving a child of his own gender as parental role model is one of the most important differences between monosexual and homosexual homes; but certainly not the only one. Harvey Milk worship and gay pride parades are indicative of an inappropriate moral structure to model in front of kids from the LGBT culture "across the nation and the world" ..

3. Yes, look up my threads on the economy, healthcare, ebola, alternative energy, Fukushima and more..

 

[Syriusly]

Harvey Milk worship and gay pride parades are indicative of an inappropriate moral structure to model in front of kids from the LGBT culture "across the nation and the world" ...

Elvis Presley worship and Carnival parades by my own hetero culture are indicatives of an equally inappropriate moral structure to model in front of kids.

I mean if you even cared.

All you want to do is prevent the children of gay parents from having married parents.

For that is the only thing preventing them from marrying accomplishes.

But it is obvious what you really want.

You want to make it illegal for gay parents to raise children....leading of course to the state taking children away from their parents all in the name of Silhouette's twisted moral point of view.

 

[Silhouette]

Quick! A strawman!!....stat! ...

 

[Skylar]

Children grow up to be adults. Do the math. It seems that inappropriate role models do have a direct harm to children..

There's zero evidence that being raised by gay parents makes you gay. Almost all gays are from hetero parenting. So using your own standards, its hetero parenting that is causing the harm you lament against.

2. I think that depriving a child of his own gender as parental role model is one of the most important differences between monosexual and homosexual homes; but certainly not the only one. Harvey Milk worship and gay pride parades are indicative of an inappropriate moral structure to model in front of kids from the LGBT culture "across the nation and the world" ..

Monosexuals are those interested in only one gender. You don't know what the terms means. And you've never been to gay pride. If you did, you'd know that the overwhelming majority of attendees are straight. And almost all the children there are brought by straight parents. Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

Worse, even your standards are an inconsistent mess. As you're also the guy that still gives child molesting Elvis a pass. So please don't pretend you give a crap about children. They're merely a horse for you to ride. If they don't allow you to bash gays, you could give a fiddler's fuck about them.

3. Yes, look up my threads on the economy, healthcare, ebola, alternative energy, Fukushima and more..

[/quote]

The ebola thread, where you predicted nuclear melt downs and the end of civilization because we allowed an ebola patient to be treated here?

Silo, I can't stress this point enough but you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

Children grow up to be adults. Do the math. It seems that inappropriate role models do have a direct harm to children..

There's zero evidence that being raised by gay parents makes you gay. Almost all gays are from hetero parenting. So using your own standards, its hetero parenting that is causing the harm you lament against.

There's a trend noted by the CDC that is disturbing. You explain it then..

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

Meanwhile there is a Mt. Everest of evidence that children raised in homes where their gender is missing as a parent is detrimental to their esteem and statistically causes problems for them. Marriage to keep both role models in the home is why the states got involved in the first place; to keep kids out of the orphanages, mental institutions and prisons. Those things get rather expensive for a state. So they lose money on the tax breaks but gain in the end overall.

 

[Silhouette]

The only one arguing to deprive children of having married parents is you.

The only one arguing for what a Justice of the Supreme Court has declared is an immediate legal harm to children is you.

Not arguing to deprive children of having married parents. Arguing instead to not deprive children of both vital genders as role models/parents. My argument is stronger than yours since mine talks about the reasons states incentivize marriage in the first place: to keep kids out of single gender homes and give them the rounded opportunity of both genders as parents. It keeps kids off the streets, out of mental institutions, welfare rolls and prisons. This is the payoff the states get for incentivizing man/woman marriage.

If that privelege becomes a "right" if SCOTUS is foolish and shortsighted enough to do that, there is no denying "marriage equality" to anyone, ever, for any reason. Don't cite the number "two" either. It will be no more binding than man/woman from a traditional point of view. If there is nothing sacred about man/woman, there is nothing sacred about "two"..

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sil, at what point is the reality that you lost the argument going to sink in? We are at 36 or 37 out of 50. Are you planning to fight all the way to 49?

 

[Montrovant]

The only one arguing to deprive children of having married parents is you.

The only one arguing for what a Justice of the Supreme Court has declared is an immediate legal harm to children is you.

Not arguing to deprive children of having married parents. Arguing instead to not deprive children of both vital genders as role models/parents. My argument is stronger than yours since mine talks about the reasons states incentivize marriage in the first place: to keep kids out of single gender homes and give them the rounded opportunity of both genders as parents. It keeps kids off the streets, out of mental institutions, welfare rolls and prisons. This is the payoff the states get for incentivizing man/woman marriage.

If that privelege becomes a "right" if SCOTUS is foolish and shortsighted enough to do that, there is no denying "marriage equality" to anyone, ever, for any reason. Don't cite the number "two" either. It will be no more binding than man/woman from a traditional point of view. If there is nothing sacred about man/woman, there is nothing sacred about "two"..

Is it your contention that gay marriage deprives children of two gender parents? Can you show examples of children from two gender parent households being removed and placed in same gender parent households? If not, I'm not certain how you think any children are being deprived of anything. If a child is an orphan, for example, they have no parents. Two same sex parents seems preferable to none. If a same sex couple has a child, through a surrogate or whatever means, whether or not they are married has no effect on the gender of that child's parents. So the child is not being deprived of anything by allowing its parents to marry.

And if the state only incentivizes marriage to keep kids out of single gender homes, why are infertile heterosexual couples permitted to marry? Would you advocate a fertility test in order to receive a marriage license?

 

[Silhouette]

I see the new spammers here are Paint and Skylar...you guys swap roles do you?

 

[Silhouette]

1. Is it your contention that gay marriage deprives children of two gender parents? 2. Can you show examples of children from two gender parent households being removed and placed in same gender parent households? If not, I'm not certain how you think any children are being deprived of anything. 3. If a child is an orphan, for example, they have no parents. Two same sex parents seems preferable to none. 4. If a same sex couple has a child, through a surrogate or whatever means, whether or not they are married has no effect on the gender of that child's parents. So the child is not being deprived of anything by allowing its parents to marry.
5. And if the state only incentivizes marriage to keep kids out of single gender homes, why are infertile heterosexual couples permitted to marry? 6. Would you advocate a fertility test in order to receive a marriage license?

Thanks for your questions. You seem like a more lawyer inclined poster.

1. No, it's my contention that children need both genders as role models. They may find the one missing is their own.

2. This looks absurd. I won't even grace it with an answer other than to say there are P-L-E-N-T-Y of studies done on the detrimental effects of children growing up without their gender in the home represented as a role model/parent.

3. Orphans and who adopts them outside of marriage is not a marriage topic. What is a marraige topic is why states are involved in incentivizing man/woman marriages. Orphans come from unplanned pregnancies. Unplanned pregnancies come from kids who grew up in lacking homes. The idea is to incentivize a situation that creates LESS orphans, not more of them. Structurally, gay marriage is no different than a single parent home when it comes to role-modeling for that unhappy child who finds his gender isn't represented..

4. It's not that every child doesn't have a mother and a father biologically speaking. It's that they need a mother and father EMOTIONALLY speaking. Again, refer to the last sentence of #3. The rest of your "logic" is absurd here.

5. Infertile couples that are man/woman do not defy the vital structure of marriage. A state anticipates that in these situations natural children, adopted, fostered or grandparented children will statistically arrive. It isn't the BIOLOGY of man/woman as married/role models...it's the PSYCHOLOGY of it. Take a course in child developmental psychology if you get some free time and get back to me.

6. No. The state isn't in the business of policing marriages for best formative environment for kids, only in incentivizing them. Please note the difference and refer to #5 for further details.

 

[Skylar]

I see the new spammers here are Paint and Skylar...you guys swap roles do you?

Silo.....just because I have a better command of the topic that you do doesn't mean I'm a spammer. My words are my own, unless I'm explicit citing a court ruling.

Not arguing to deprive children of having married parents.

That's exactly what you're arguing. As gays and lesbians already have kids. You're insisting that the parents of those children should never be allowed to marry.

As Kennedy has noted in the Windsor decision, denying their parents marriage causes harm to those kids. Which you summarily ignore. Don't expect the USSC to ignore that harm just because do.

Arguing instead to not deprive children of both vital genders as role models/parents.

Same problem as above: gays and lesbians are still having kids anyway. The only question is.....will the parents of those children be married, nor not? You insist these children never have married parents. I argue that they should have married parents.

And Kennedy cites the harm caused to those children when marriage is denied to their parents. Kennedy isn't likely to ignore himself when ruling on same sex marriage.

My argument is stronger than yours since mine talks about the reasons states incentivize marriage in the first place: to keep kids out of single gender homes and give them the rounded opportunity of both genders as parents.

Actually, no it isn't. Your argument is quite awful. As marriage isn't exclusively about children.......demonstrated by all the sterile and infertile people being allowed to marry or stay married. With millions of couples never having kids. There's clearly a basis of marriage that has nothing to do with kids. And you're insisting we deny it to gays and lesbians. Which makes no sense.

Second, gays and lesbians are already having kids. Denying them marriage won't change that. All it does is deprive the children of such parents the benefits of married parents. Which Kennedy has explained in detail harms these children. Harm you don't seem to care at all about. But which a reasonable person would.

Third, your basis of harm is merely your opinion. The 'harm' you base your claims on merely an assumption. And it makes no sense to ignore ACTUAL harm to children while basing your argument solely on imaginary harm. Yet you do it anyway. No rational person ever would.

 

[Montrovant]

1. Is it your contention that gay marriage deprives children of two gender parents? 2. Can you show examples of children from two gender parent households being removed and placed in same gender parent households? If not, I'm not certain how you think any children are being deprived of anything. 3. If a child is an orphan, for example, they have no parents. Two same sex parents seems preferable to none. 4. If a same sex couple has a child, through a surrogate or whatever means, whether or not they are married has no effect on the gender of that child's parents. So the child is not being deprived of anything by allowing its parents to marry.
5. And if the state only incentivizes marriage to keep kids out of single gender homes, why are infertile heterosexual couples permitted to marry? 6. Would you advocate a fertility test in order to receive a marriage license?

Thanks for your questions. You seem like a more lawyer inclined poster.

1. No, it's my contention that children need both genders as role models. They may find the one missing is their own.

2. This looks absurd. I won't even grace it with an answer other than to say there are P-L-E-N-T-Y of studies done on the detrimental effects of children growing up without their gender in the home represented as a role model/parent.

3. Orphans and who adopts them outside of marriage is not a marriage topic. What is a marraige topic is why states are involved in incentivizing man/woman marriages. Orphans come from unplanned pregnancies. Unplanned pregnancies come from kids who grew up in lacking homes. The idea is to incentivize a situation that creates LESS orphans, not more of them. Structurally, gay marriage is no different than a single parent home when it comes to role-modeling for that unhappy child who finds his gender isn't represented..

4. It's not that every child doesn't have a mother and a father biologically speaking. It's that they need a mother and father EMOTIONALLY speaking. Again, refer to the last sentence of #3. The rest of your "logic" is absurd here.

5. Infertile couples that are man/woman do not defy the vital structure of marriage. A state anticipates that in these situations natural children, adopted, fostered or grandparented children will statistically arrive. It isn't the BIOLOGY of man/woman as married/role models...it's the PSYCHOLOGY of it. Take a course in child developmental psychology if you get some free time and get back to me.

6. No. The state isn't in the business of policing marriages for best formative environment for kids, only in incentivizing them. Please note the difference and refer to #5 for further details.

You make assumptions that are, as far as I can tell, without any particular evidence to back them up.

You say the reason for the state to grant incentives in the form of heterosexual marriage is the rearing of children, yet you give a pass to infertile couples or, I would imagine, couples who's age prohibits having children. You are basically arguing that the government hopes that heterosexual marriage will lead to stable environments for children without providing any evidence that it actually does so. Even assuming it does (and I wouldn't argue against it, although I think you may over-emphasize it as a factor), you have failed to provide any evidence that it is the sole or even main reason for state-sanctioned marriage.

If it were feasible, I'd be perfectly fine with the government getting out of the marriage business. However, I am confident that is not a realistic option. Since the reality is that the state will continue to be involved in marriage; and since heterosexual marriage has a myriad of issues and problems already that at the least mitigates against it as a positive influence on the family structure of children as you envision; and since you provide little to no objective evidence that homosexual marriage actually harms children in any way; and since your arguments, in general, seem to hinge on your personal moral standards rather than the law or much objective research or study; I find it hard to give much credence to your opinions on this matter.

Having a male and female parent may be superior to having two same sex parents. However, I find little in your arguments to make me believe that allowing legal same sex marriage will cause children who would otherwise be in two sex parent households to end up in single sex parent households.

 

[Silhouette]

You make assumptions that are, as far as I can tell, without any particular evidence to back them up.

You say the reason for the state to grant incentives in the form of heterosexual marriage is the rearing of children, yet you give a pass to infertile couples or, I would imagine, couples who's age prohibits having children. You are basically arguing that the government hopes that heterosexual marriage will lead to stable environments for children without providing any evidence that it actually does so. Even assuming it does (and I wouldn't argue against it, although I think you may over-emphasize it as a factor), you have failed to provide any evidence that it is the sole or even main reason for state-sanctioned marriage...

The STUCTURE of marriage that is best for the formative PSYCHOLOGICAL environment for kids who find themselves in BOTH GENDERS.

You forgot that part. Infertile ,man/woman couples statistically adopt, foster or grandparent. They don't violate the structure, so they are allowed.. The state doesn't police, it incentivizes the base structure.

 

[Skylar]

You make assumptions that are, as far as I can tell, without any particular evidence to back them up.

You say the reason for the state to grant incentives in the form of heterosexual marriage is the rearing of children, yet you give a pass to infertile couples or, I would imagine, couples who's age prohibits having children. You are basically arguing that the government hopes that heterosexual marriage will lead to stable environments for children without providing any evidence that it actually does so. Even assuming it does (and I wouldn't argue against it, although I think you may over-emphasize it as a factor), you have failed to provide any evidence that it is the sole or even main reason for state-sanctioned marriage...

The STUCTURE of marriage that is best for the formative PSYCHOLOGICAL environment for kids who find themselves in BOTH GENDERS.

Wonderful statement of opinion. And just as irrelevant as last time you posted it. As marriage isn't exclusively about children.......demonstrated by all the sterile and infertile people being allowed to marry or stay married. With millions of couples never having kids. There's clearly a basis of marriage that has nothing to do with kids. And you're insisting we deny it to gays and lesbians. Which makes no sense.

Second, gays and lesbians are already having kids. Denying them marriage won't change that. All it does is deprive the children of such parents the benefits of married parents. Which Kennedy has explained in detail harms these children. Harm you don't seem to care at all about. But which a reasonable person would.

Third, your basis of harm is merely your opinion. The 'harm' you base your claims on merely an assumption. And it makes no sense to ignore ACTUAL harm to children while basing your argument solely on imaginary harm. Yet you do it anyway. No rational person ever would.

You forgot that part. Infertile ,man/woman couples statistically adopt, foster or grandparent. They don't violate the structure, so they are allowed.. The state doesn't police, it incentivizes the base structure.

Unless they don't. There's no connection whatsoever between the benefits recieved by a couple and their capacity to have children or having them. The benefits come either way. Demonstrating elegantly that there is a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children.

Nor does any State require that anyone have children or be able to have them in order to be married.

Why then would we exclude gays from marriage when the standard for exclusion doesn't exist and applies to no one?

 

[Syriusly]

The only one arguing to deprive children of having married parents is you.

The only one arguing for what a Justice of the Supreme Court has declared is an immediate legal harm to children is you.

Not arguing to deprive children of having married parents. .

Of course you are.

You do not want gay parents who are raising their children from being married.

You do not want the children of gay parents to have married parents .

That is the only effect on children from preventing a gay couple from marrying- ensuring that their children will not have married parents.

 

[Syriusly]

You make assumptions that are, as far as I can tell, without any particular evidence to back them up.

You say the reason for the state to grant incentives in the form of heterosexual marriage is the rearing of children, yet you give a pass to infertile couples or, I would imagine, couples who's age prohibits having children. You are basically arguing that the government hopes that heterosexual marriage will lead to stable environments for children without providing any evidence that it actually does so. Even assuming it does (and I wouldn't argue against it, although I think you may over-emphasize it as a factor), you have failed to provide any evidence that it is the sole or even main reason for state-sanctioned marriage...

The STUCTURE of marriage that is best for the formative PSYCHOLOGICAL environment for kids who find themselves in BOTH GENDERS.

You forgot that part. Infertile ,man/woman couples statistically adopt, foster or grandparent. They don't violate the structure, so they are allowed.. The state doesn't police, it incentivizes the base structure.

The state does police- it takes children away from parents who are endangering them. The state also tells some couples that in order to marry that they must prove that they cannot have biological children.

That is policing.

IF the state can require a couple to prove infertility- it can require a couple to prove fertility.

But states don't do that- because as the laws show- State laws do not incentivize marriage based upon children.

 

[Silhouette]

You do not want gay parents who are raising their children from being married.

You do not want the children of gay parents to have married parents .

That is the only effect on children from preventing a gay couple from marrying- ensuring that their children will not have married parents.

I'll be honest with you. I'm not thinking about the adults AT ALL when it comes to defining marriage. I'm thinking about the kids and what formative environment is appropriate for their best upbringing... Which one states would do best at encouraging around children. I've read the statistics on kids raised in homes where their gender as-parent is missing.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'll be honest with you. I'm not thinking about the adults AT ALL...

Yes, we know, but that's all that matters to the courts.

 

[Silhouette]

I'll be honest with you. I'm not thinking about the adults AT ALL...

Yes, we know, but that's all that matters to the courts.

No, the courts seemed to be quite concerned about the wellbeing of children. The trouble is, the few thousand caught up in gay lifestyles vs the 100s of millions into the unforseeable future that will call "marriage" a home without both genders as role models...and those predictable bad effects.