11th Circuit Gears Up For Gay Marriage Case? SCOTUS?

[g5000]

It was those damned Progressives during the Progressive Era who began incentivizing marriage in the tax code.

Before that, we were a nation of bastards.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It was those damned Progressives during the Progressive Era who began incentivizing marriage in the tax code.

Before that, we were a nation of bastards.

Most humans born into the world have been bastards, and that includes Cain and Abel.

 

[g5000]

It was those damned Progressives during the Progressive Era who began incentivizing marriage in the tax code.

Before that, we were a nation of bastards.

Most humans born into the world have been bastards, and that includes Cain and Abel.

Alexander Hamilton. Another famous bastard.

 

[g5000]

Geez, if those Progressives hadn't a stuck that marriage incentivizer into our tax codes way back a hunnert years or so ago, who knows what Merka would look like today.

People wouldn't want to get married. Those who did would divorce most of the time. Procreation would be on the decline. What children we had, a lot of them would be like, "I don't know who my daddy is."

I shudder to think what that world would be like.

Thank God the State decided to get involved in our private lives. Buy this refrigerator and get a tax gift! Marry someone and have kids and get more government cash! Buy these select commercial products and we'll shower you with even MORE cash!

 

[g5000]

I get an incentivizer if I get married to a chick. Now these fags want the exact same thing I get. They think they are special.

All these people with their hand out, trying to horn in on the same stuff I get. Geez! They are REALLY annoying.

 

[Skylar]

States should be able to incentivize that best situation for their only concern in marriage: the children in it. Children need and deserve both complimentary genders in the home for their own self-esteem and balanced formative years that prepare them for society at large. That can be found in the best scenario of their two blood parents or the next best in adoptive father/mother.

Then what of all the infertile couples that are allowed to marry or remain married? What of those who never have children? There are literally millions upon millions of exceptions.....and the institution has survived just fine. A few more for gays won't matter.

 

[Skylar]

...
Justice Kennedy alluded to the views of children being raised by same-sex couples as if our desires and concerns are identical to and uncritical of the decisions made by our parents. The reality is far more complicated than that.
Putting aside all the historical analogies to civil rights and the sentimental platitudes about love, the fact is that same-sex parenting suffers from insurmountable logistical problems for which children pay the steepest lifelong price.
Whether it’s by surrogacy, insemination, divorce, or commercialized adoption, moral hazards abound for same-sex couples who insist on replicating a heterosexual model of parenthood. The children thrown into the middle of these moral hazards are well aware of their parents’ role in creating a stressful and emotionally complicated life for kids, which alienates them from cultural traditions like Father’s Day and Mother’s Day, and places them in the unenviable position of being called “homophobes” if they simply suffer the natural stress that their parents foisted on them—and admit to it.
Same Sex Parenting What Do the Children Say

What trauma? Children of gays and lesbians are just as well adjusted as those raised by straights. You've offered us the fear. But you've failed to back that fear up with evidence.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, children are a compelling reason. Sorry. For the love of God, accept that children thrive best in homes where they have a mother AND a father.

French populists agree: ..

Yes- because America strives to follow in the footsteps of "French Populists"......LOL.....

 

[Syriusly]

States should be able to incentivize that best situation for their only concern in marriage: the children in it. r

Shame isn't it that no States have actually done that?

That States only belatedly starting claiming that children were an issue when they made gay marriages illegal.

But if you look at marriage laws- there is virtually nothing that the states does to incentivize parents of children to be married.

All you are proposing is ensuring that the children of same gender parents can't have married parents.

And you know what Justice Kennedy thinks about that.

 

[Syriusly]

That best environment involves a father and a mother. All others are inferior for all the reasons stated in the OP.

That is incorrect and the State has a interest which it very often, and unfortunately, ignores when it lets biology override what is in the best for the child. The best parents for a child are very often not those who created it. There are very few people I would let reproduce, and even fewer who would be allowed to then act as parents.

You make a huge and poor assumption, heterosexual biological parents are best, and you're wrong.

Pretty much every child in foster care has been abandoned there by their heterosexual biological parents.

So to get even with those poor children, homophobes would like to prefer that children abandoned by heterosexuals, cannot be adopted by homosexuals.

Because that would be bad.

 

[Syriusly]

What exactly is a "gay-lifestyle marriage"? Isn't that the one where two married people get to file a joint tax return and are eligible for Social Security death benefits? Or did you think it was the one where you are forced to suck a dick?

If you are opposed to this "gay-lifestyle marriage" being allowed, it makes me wonder how you feel about the gay lifestyle in general being allowed.

I think adults should be allowed to smoke cigarettes. I don't think they should be allowed to smoke cigarettes inside homes or cars where children are constantly present. That is the best analogy I can give you about your point. Adults can fuck up and do insane/stupid or harmful stuff. They just cannot be allowed to drag kids down with them without the child's knowledgable consent. And since children are not capable of that knowledgable consent, the state gets involved on their behalf.

So you want the State to remove children from their homosexual parents- that is your solution to preventing the parents from getting married?

 

[Skylar]

It was those damned Progressives during the Progressive Era who began incentivizing marriage in the tax code.

Before that, we were a nation of bastards.

Most humans born into the world have been bastards, and that includes Cain and Abel.

Alexander Hamilton. Another famous bastard.

That would make Burr a bastard killing bastard.

 

[Syriusly]

Actually children thrive best when there are many adults around to care for them, period. The sex of the adults matters not a damn but your homophobia simply clouds all rational thought this issue.

If you truly wanted to do what was best for children we'd have to change society a fundamental level, and many biological parents would lose their children, forever.

I disagree. So do the children themselves:

************

During the oral arguments about Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy referred to children being raised by same-sex couples

Lets go with what Justice Kennedy said:

"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's quote about kids in DOMA

There is a striking aspect to Kennedy's surprisingly passionate opinion: He focuses directly on the children of same-sex couples.

DOMA, he writes, "humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives."

 

[Silhouette]

Then what of all the infertile couples that are allowed to marry or remain married? What of those who never have children? There are literally millions upon millions of exceptions.....and the institution has survived just fine. A few more for gays won't matter.

Read the OP. The male/female model necessary for raising children as father/mother is not violated by childless couples. In fact, they can adopt and still provide that vital complimentary-gender role model environment for both genders of children that may come naturally or by adoption.

Gay lifestyles guarantee that any children in their home will be missing one of the complimentary genders or one of the blood parents, whichever, 100% of the time. They guarantee that deficiency 100% of the time to childrens' detriment. So the state rejects those types of "marriages" on behalf of the best arrangement for children.

I'll say it again. The state has no interest in marriage other than to incentivize the best formative environment for children. A certain arrangement qualifies. All others do not. It's the reason also that in most states minors cannot marry (too young to raise children properly), incest cannot marry (too genetically-skewed where inbreeding could harm resulting children), polygamists cannot marry (too many spouses dilutes individual attention and resources a child might receive from his/her father). Gays cannot marry (children will be missing the complimentary gender and one blood parent 100% of the time). And singles cannot marry themselves (for all the same reasons as gays to the detriment of children).

Though children come from all those arrangements naturally (except gays), the art of the state is to draw them away from those beginnings by setting up a brass ring for father/ mother to gravitate towards marriage for the sake of children of all walks.

 

[Syriusly]

I'll say it again. The state has no interest in marriage other than to incentivize the best formative environment for children. /QUOTE]

YOu can say it as much as you want.

The facts are that the state does virtually nothing to incentivize marriage for children.

That is one of the reasons states keep losing- they make that argument in court and the court points out that they treat childless couples- even couples who are forbidden to have children- exactly the same legally as couples with children- with the exact same incentives.

I could argue just as much that the State incentivizes marriage to encourage couples to buy two cars- there would be as much evidence to support it.

 

[Syriusly]

I'll say it again. The state has no interest in marriage other than to incentivize the best formative environment for children. /QUOTE]

YOu can say it as much as you want.

The facts are that the state does virtually nothing to incentivize marriage for children.

That is one of the reasons states keep losing- they make that argument in court and the court points out that they treat childless couples- even couples who are forbidden to have children- exactly the same legally as couples with children- with the exact same incentives.

I could argue just as much that the State incentivizes marriage to encourage couples to buy two cars- there would be as much evidence to support it.

YOu can say it as much as you want.

The facts are that the state does virtually nothing to incentivize marriage for children.

That is one of the reasons states keep losing- they make that argument in court and the court points out that they treat childless couples- even couples who are forbidden to have children- exactly the same legally as couples with children- with the exact same incentives.

I could argue just as much that the State incentivizes marriage to encourage couples to buy to buy homes- and there would be as much evidence to support it.

 

[Skylar]

Read the OP. The male/female model necessary for raising children as father/mother is not violated by childless couples. In fact, they can adopt and still provide that vital complimentary-gender role model environment for both genders of children that may come naturally or by adoption.

But the infertile couples don't serve the model. Yet society still incentives their unions. Demonstrating elegantly that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children. A point underlined and emphasized by the fact that no one is required to have children or be able to have them in order to be married.

Why then would we give millions and millions of straights incentives despite their inability or unwillingness to meet the 'standard' you cite, while excluding gays for failing to meet a standard that *no one* is held to?

It makes absolutely no sense. If tens of millions of exceptions can be made for straights, then a few million can be made for gays.

 

[Syriusly]

Read the OP. The male/female model necessary for raising children as father/mother is not violated by childless couples. In fact, they can adopt and still provide that vital complimentary-gender role model environment for both genders of children that may come naturally or by adoption.

But the infertile couples don't serve the model. Yet society still incentives their unions. Demonstrating elegantly that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children. A point underlined and emphasized by the fact that no one is required to have children or be able to have them in order to be married.

Why then would we give millions and millions of straights incentives despite their inability or unwillingness to meet the 'standard' you cite, while excluding gays for failing to meet a standard that *no one* is held to?

It makes absolutely no sense. If tens of millions of exceptions can be made for straights, then a few million can be made for gays.

If we wanted to incentivize people to become doctors- would we give cash bonuses to everyone who takes a biology course in college?


Or would we give incentives to the people who actually become doctors?

IF States wanted to incentivize people getting married and raising their children- then marriage 'incentives' would go to those couples who
a) marry and
b) have children and
c) stay married.

Not everyone who marries- so long as they aren't gay.

 

[Silhouette]

Like it or not, there is only one reason the state wants people to be married: for the best stability of children. There is no other logical reason for the state to be involved in legal marriage at all. It sets out special bisquits, donuts, coffee and tea cake to lure in fathers/mothers males/females, the complimentary genders, the only ones capable of childbirth and proper formation of a balanced role model environment to prepare children for the best ,most well-rounded life as future adults.

Again, adults are only a peripheral concern. Marriage is about children.

 

[Skylar]

Like it or not, there is only one reason the state wants people to be married: for the best stability of children.

Like it or not, the State makes millions upon millions of exceptions to this 'reason'. And if its going to make such an exception for straights, it can make them for gays.

There is no other logical reason for the state to be involved in legal marriage at all.

The same reason used by the millions of straight couples that get married and never have children.

You can't get around the fact that no one is required to have children or be able to have them to be married. Why then would we apply a non-existent standard....and then only to gays?

There's no logical reason to do either.

Again, adults are only a peripheral concern. Marriage is about children.

A claim undermined by three facts. One, all of the childless married couples, the infertile either marrying or allowed to stay married. And two, all the children among gays and lesbians. Gays and lesbians can be parents too. And finally, three, the lack of any requirement for anyone, straight or gay, to have children or be able to.