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

[Skylar]

Oh, I can tell you what I think is likely, based on his past rulings. Your assessment is based on what you imagine Kennedy HASN'T considered, based on your imagination. Which is mindlessly speculative claptrap. As you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what Kennedy has or hasn't considered.

I can quote Kennedy on what he's already said. You quote yourself AS Kennedy, attributing to him positions he's never uttered, prioritizes he's never voiced, and conclusions he's never used in any argument. All that just happen to match your beliefs perfectly.

That's silly. You imagining Kennedy believes the exact opposite of what he's already stated is meaningless. And has resulted in your absymal record of prediction....which is essentially worse than guessing.

I know two things about Kennedy:

1. He is a Supreme Court Justice and as such he...

2. Should damned well better not be in the business of "believing"; and instead he should be in the business of weighing despite his beliefs...

You claimed to know what Kennedy had 'considered', which was blithering nonsense. You have no idea what you're talking about. Worse, you irrationally extrapolated this elaborate alternate reality where Kennedy suddenly agrees with everything you do the moment he 'considers the future children'. Which was more imaginary nonsense.

Your argument remains a fictional tale that might as well begin wtih 'once upon a time'. All you know is what Kennedy has said. And it has nothing to do with what you believe.

And as it happens he is famous for being unpredictable. Which means he is probably one of the best Justices of the Nine. It's an old fashioned notion that a wise and seasoned judge should be one who rules against his own convictions when swayed by cold logic.

Its technically possible that he'll suddenly and inexplicably do a 180 on all his previous legal reasoning and abandon the Lawrence, Romer and Windsor decisions for no particular reason.

But its not even a little likely. You claim it is. And your basis of reasoning is nothing but you imagination. Which, as your past forays into pretending think for Kennedy have demonstrated, have a record of accuracy that's worse than guessing.

Unless you'd like to tell us again how Kennedy 'really' opposes gay marriage because of that stay granted Utah.....

No? I didn't think so.

Enter, cold logic:

Translation: Enter Silo's imagination and pseudo legal nonsense backed by exactly jack shit.

Gay marriage guarantees the lack of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent to children in that formative environment 100% of the time.

Several enormous problems with your logic. First, gays and lesbians are having kids already. As Kennedy noted, there are 10s of thousands of children of gay parents. And they are being harmed by their parents not being allowed to marry.

And it 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....

....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

Justice Kennedy
Windsor V. US

You may ignore these harms to children. But Kennedy didn't. And its unlikely that he will.

Second, almost every adoption 'robs a child of a blood parent'. As does any surrogacy, and most IVF. Along with the hundreds of thousands of mixed families of divorce. And none of the melodramatic catastrophies you've made up happened. Its ridiculously unlikely that Kennedy is going to be swayed by that argument, as it doesn't make the slightest sense.

As for children being raised in same sex households, 1) its happening regardless of marriage 2) there's no appreciable harm to children. Children raised in same sex households are as healthy and well adjusted as those from hetero led households.

So why would Kennedy turn on gay marriage when it doesn't cause harm to children....and will happen regardless of his ruling on gay marriage?

Again, your assumptions are without logic or a rational reason.
.

That is a cold FACT that nobody can dispute.

See above for how the harm you imagine can most definitely be disputed. And Kennedy has already blown enormous holes in your reasoning in his Windsor ruling.

You promote that we should use children as guinea pigs in experimenting with gay-lifestyle "marriages". I'm saying we have enough evidence already to show us that for the untold 100s of millions of future children, having both genders as parents and preferably blood parents is in their and society's best interest.

Adoption has been around for millennia. IVF for more than a generation. None of the harm you've made up manifested. So your 'blood parent' nonsense is just baseless fear mongering backed by your own melodramatic flair and speculatively poor predictive record.

As for same sex households raising children....gay parents are already raising children with or without marriage. So the ruling on the marriage is profoundly irrelevant to the issue. Nor is there any harm caused to children by being raised in a same sex household. However, as Kennedy made ridiculously clear, preventing the parents of these children from marrying does cause harm to the children.

Harm you ignore. Harm Kennedy hasn't.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, I can tell you what I think is likely, based on his past rulings. Your assessment is based on what you imagine Kennedy HASN'T considered, based on your imagination. Which is mindlessly speculative claptrap. As you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what Kennedy has or hasn't considered.

I can quote Kennedy on what he's already said. You quote yourself AS Kennedy, attributing to him positions he's never uttered, prioritizes he's never voiced, and conclusions he's never used in any argument. All that just happen to match your beliefs perfectly.

That's silly. You imagining Kennedy believes the exact opposite of what he's already stated is meaningless. And has resulted in your absymal record of prediction....which is essentially worse than guessing.

I know two things about Kennedy:

1. He is a Supreme Court Justice and as such he...

2. Should damned well better not be in the business of "believing"; and instead he should be in the business of weighing despite his beliefs...

And as it happens he is famous for being unpredictable. Which means he is probably one of the best Justices of the Nine. It's an old fashioned notion that a wise and seasoned judge should be one who rules against his own convictions when swayed by cold logic.

Enter, cold logic:

Gay marriage guarantees the lack of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent to children in that formative environment 100% of the time.

That is a cold FACT that nobody can dispute.

You promote that we should use children as guinea pigs in experimenting with gay-lifestyle "marriages". I'm saying we have enough evidence already to show us that for the untold 100s of millions of future children, having both genders as parents and preferably blood parents is in their and society's best interest.

And of course, gay marriage is going to take children out of good, two parents of opposite gender households, right?

I could, perhaps, see your argument as having some merit if we weren't already a country filled with single parent homes and some pretty high divorce rates. What, I wonder, is the research on the difference between being raised by two same gender parents as opposed to one parent?

More adults around is usually always better, as long as they get along. More money, more attention, more likely that someone will be home when the kids are. That part isn't rocket-science and has been looked into.

Yup. You either get two bread winners, which means more resources and stability for the kids. Or you get a full time caretaker, which means more attention and emotional support.

Its a win, win either way. Just like in hetero led families.

I am always in awe of a single parent who manages to do that job well all by his or herself.

That said- two parents of the same gender is no more off balance than a single parent household- and is far less likely to suffer from financial insecurity.

Its hard to say. There are some pretty consistent results that show that single parent households have slightly worse outcomes than two parent household. But the results seem to be linked very closely to income. As single parent households in the middle class and above don't seem to have any significantly greater negative outcomes.

So the financial security issue could be more central. But genuinely effect the outcomes for children negatively, and be more common among single parent household.

Making single parenthood a correlative rather than causative factor.

Assuming everything else is equal- two parent households will be better for children. Assuming everything else is equal- married parents are better for children than unmarried parents.

Silhouette just wants to guarantee that the children of gay parents never have married parents.[/QUOTE]

 

[Silhouette]

Its hard to say. There are some pretty consistent results that show that single parent households have slightly worse outcomes than two parent household. But the results seem to be linked very closely to income. As single parent households in the middle class and above don't seem to have any significantly greater negative outcomes.

So the financial security issue could be more central. But genuinely effect the outcomes for children negatively, and be more common among single parent household.

"Some pretty consistent rules" eh? What about the "pretty consistent rules" that show the complimentary genders "mother/father" are the best outcome for their children who would naturally be of both sexes, by random genetics? Gonna give those a pass I'm sure...

 

[Skylar]

Its hard to say. There are some pretty consistent results that show that single parent households have slightly worse outcomes than two parent household. But the results seem to be linked very closely to income. As single parent households in the middle class and above don't seem to have any significantly greater negative outcomes.

So the financial security issue could be more central. But genuinely effect the outcomes for children negatively, and be more common among single parent household.

"Some pretty consistent rules" eh? What about the "pretty consistent rules" that show the complimentary genders "mother/father" are the best outcome for their children who would naturally be of both sexes, by random genetics? Gonna give those a pass I'm sure...

Pretty consistent results.

Dear God, Silo....you can't even read words that do exist right now with any accuracy. Yet you're going to try and pretend like you can magically tell us rulings from the future based thoughts you imagine for people you don't know?

Um, no.

 

[Syriusly]

Its hard to say. There are some pretty consistent results that show that single parent households have slightly worse outcomes than two parent household. But the results seem to be linked very closely to income. As single parent households in the middle class and above don't seem to have any significantly greater negative outcomes.

So the financial security issue could be more central. But genuinely effect the outcomes for children negatively, and be more common among single parent household.

"Some pretty consistent rules" eh? What about the "pretty consistent rules" that show the complimentary genders "mother/father" are the best outcome for their children who would naturally be of both sexes, by random genetics? Gonna give those a pass I'm sure...

What about those children?

Lets talk about children.

Children being birthed and raised by heterosexual couples are not affected by gay marriage at all.

That leaves only two groups of kids- kids birthed by heterosexuals and abandoned by their parents- and kids being raised by homosexuals.

a) Kids in foster care/available for adoption: Adoption rules in most states are independent of marriage rules. States that allow gay marriage may allow adoption by gay couples or may not. States that don't allow gay marriage may allow adoption by gay couples- affect of gay marriage on these children: none.

b) Kids being raised by homosexual parents: children are already being raised by homosexuals- children from previous marriages/relationships, children conceived through sperm donations/children born of surrogates and adopted children. Denying marriage to these couples doesn't 'prevent' any of these children from having gay parents.

But denying marriage to these couples does ensure that these children will not have married parents.

IF the argument that marriage is for the benefit of children- then those who argue against gay marriage are essentially arguing that the children of gay couples do not deserve the benefits of marriage.

Why do homophobes hate the children of gay couples?

 

[Silhouette]

Children being birthed and raised by heterosexual couples are not affected by gay marriage at all....
IF the argument that marriage is for the benefit of children- then those who argue against gay marriage are essentially arguing that the children of gay couples do not deserve the benefits of marriage.
Why do homophobes hate the children of gay couples?

Not sure. People that disagree with gay marriage are not by definition "homophobes". They may actually care more about the children caught up in gay lifestyle marriage more than the gays in that lifestyle. I'd bet on it actually.

Gay marriage robs children caught up in that unfortunate situation of the complimentary gender and blood parent 100% of the time. That robs them of 1/2 of their formative experience in preparation for interaction in the real social world after they leave home. That is psychologically punitive. All manner of kids are caught up in bad situations, like single parenthood and polygamy marriages. That doesn't mean we incentivize bad situations we know will be a detriment to kids with the benefits of marriage..

 

[Syriusly]

Children being birthed and raised by heterosexual couples are not affected by gay marriage at all....
IF the argument that marriage is for the benefit of children- then those who argue against gay marriage are essentially arguing that the children of gay couples do not deserve the benefits of marriage.
Why do homophobes hate the children of gay couples?

Not sure. People that disagree with gay marriage are not by definition "homophobes". They may actually care more about the children caught up in gay lifestyle marriage more than the gays in that lifestyle. I'd bet on it actually...

So why do you hate the children of gay parents?

Why is it that you insist that the children of gay parents must not get married- when the only affect that will have on children is to deny them married parents.

You are the one who insists despite all the evidence that marriage is for the sake of children.

Yet you are also the one who insists that gay parents of children must not- cannot- be allowed to marry.

Why do you hate their children so much?

 

[Syriusly]

Children being birthed and raised by heterosexual couples are not affected by gay marriage at all....
IF the argument that marriage is for the benefit of children- then those who argue against gay marriage are essentially arguing that the children of gay couples do not deserve the benefits of marriage.
Why do homophobes hate the children of gay couples?

Gay marriage robs children caught up in that unfortunate situation of the complimentary gender and blood parent 100% of the time...

How Silhouette?

How?

Take two examples-

Elaine and Ellen- they have no children- they get married- and never have children- how exactly does their marriage rob any children of anything?

Example #2

Elaine and Doris- they have 2 children. After they are legally able to get married, they do so- and now their 2 children have married parents- how exactly does their marriage rob these children of anything?

Explain how exactly gay marriage robs any children of anything other than having unmarried parents.

 

[Silhouette]

Explain how exactly gay marriage robs any children of anything other than having unmarried parents.

You mean again?

OK, children involved in "gay marriage" are deprived of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent 100% of the time. This sets them at a disadvantage to children raised in formative environments who have daily access to both genders as parental role models.

Two childless lesbians may not marry because marriage is an incentive program solely for children. The state has no other reason. And since I've just described how two lesbians don't fit the description of a couple the state wants to incentivize with the PRIVELEGE of marriage (it's not a right) for the best well being of children, two women or two men applying do not cut the muster. Two heteros do, childless or not; so they do not interfere with the standard. The state anticipates statistically that at some point a childless hetero couple will either have their own young or adopt them into a father/mother environment necessary for that child's proper formation of self esteem (his or her gender will always be represented in that home) and social interaction with both genders as the child leaves the home later in life.

 

[Montrovant]

Explain how exactly gay marriage robs any children of anything other than having unmarried parents.

You mean again?

OK, children involved in "gay marriage" are deprived of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent 100% of the time. This sets them at a disadvantage to children raised in formative environments who have daily access to both genders as parental role models.

Two childless lesbians may not marry because marriage is an incentive program solely for children. The state has no other reason. And since I've just described how two lesbians don't fit the description of a couple the state wants to incentivize with the PRIVELEGE of marriage (it's not a right) for the best well being of children, two women or two men applying do not cut the muster. Two heteros do, childless or not; so they do not interfere with the standard. The state anticipates statistically that at some point a childless hetero couple will either have their own young or adopt them into a father/mother environment necessary for that child's proper formation of self esteem (his or her gender will always be represented in that home) and social interaction with both genders as the child leaves the home later in life.

I think you may be missing his point.

What you say is only true if the children being discussed would be raised by two different gender parents, if only homosexual marriage were not legal.

Also, where do you get this information that the state anticipates a childless couple will either have their own young or adopt them? That seems pretty obviously to be your own opinion having nothing to do with the actual institution of marriage in this country.

 

[Silhouette]

I think you may be missing his point.

What you say is only true if the children being discussed would be raised by two different gender parents, if only homosexual marriage were not legal.

Also, where do you get this information that the state anticipates a childless couple will either have their own young or adopt them? That seems pretty obviously to be your own opinion having nothing to do with the actual institution of marriage in this country.

Gay lifestyle marriage isn't legal in most states. Only three or four? Five maybe? The rest it is illegal regardless of illegal lower circuit court defiance (contempt) of the Supreme's 2013 Windsor "states' choice" ruling..

Where do I get the information that a state would anticipate a childless hetero marriage would result in live births? Biology that I took in junior high school. And common sense. All marriages ostensibly start out with no children and then progress to children. At least ideally they do.

If the point is belabored I can guarantee you that any sitting judge who is impartial will admit that a state only is in the business of incentivizing the privelege of marriage with perks only to set up a good formative environment for children expected to arrive. Outside of that, what rational reason would there be to incentivize anyone to legally formalize their relationship with anyone else? The state and insurance companies lose money on marriage. There has to be some reason that the state sees as a personal benefit to itself for giving married people tax breaks. That benefit would be the best formation of its future citizens in the most stable and functional environment with the best psychological backdrop within which to form the minds of its future citizens to be well-adjusted.

Otherwise crime rates statistically escalate as does mental illness and indigency. So we lure in father/mother to care for children so they can form their gender-appropriate self esteem and social adjustments interacting with the gender opposite themselves also so that they are the best well balanced citizens when they fledge. As adults thusly raised, they are less expensive to society.

 

[Syriusly]

Explain how exactly gay marriage robs any children of anything other than having unmarried parents.

You mean again?

OK, children involved in "gay marriage" are deprived of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent 100% of the time. This sets them at a disadvantage to children raised in formative environments who have daily access to both genders as parental role models.

Two childless lesbians may not marry because marriage is an incentive program solely for children. The state has no other reason. And since I've just described how two lesbians don't fit the description of a couple the state wants to incentivize with the PRIVELEGE of marriage (it's not a right) for the best well being of children, two women or two men applying do not cut the muster. Two heteros do, childless or not; so they do not interfere with the standard. The state anticipates statistically that at some point a childless hetero couple will either have their own young or adopt them into a father/mother environment necessary for that child's proper formation of self esteem (his or her gender will always be represented in that home) and social interaction with both genders as the child leaves the home later in life.

Again- how does gay marriage change any of that?

Again- an example
Couple a: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- not married.
Couple b: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- married.

How are the children of Couple b harmed by that marriage?

The only difference is that the children of Couple B have married parents.

So why do you want to deprive the children of homosexuals of having married parents?

 

[Syriusly]

I think you may be missing his point.

What you say is only true if the children being discussed would be raised by two different gender parents, if only homosexual marriage were not legal.

Also, where do you get this information that the state anticipates a childless couple will either have their own young or adopt them? That seems pretty obviously to be your own opinion having nothing to do with the actual institution of marriage in this country.

Gay lifestyle marriage isn't legal in most states..

Just a stupid lie.

in 35 states now- same gender couples are getting legally married.

And if those couples had children before they got married- those children now have married parents.

 

[Syriusly]

[ All marriages ostensibly start out with no children and then progress to children. At least ideally they do..

So you are saying that George and Martha Washington had a less than ideal marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

Children being birthed and raised by heterosexual couples are not affected by gay marriage at all....
IF the argument that marriage is for the benefit of children- then those who argue against gay marriage are essentially arguing that the children of gay couples do not deserve the benefits of marriage.
Why do homophobes hate the children of gay couples?

Gay marriage robs children caught up in that unfortunate situation of the complimentary gender and blood parent 100% of the time...

How Silhouette?

How?

Take two examples-

Elaine and Ellen- they have no children- they get married- and never have children- how exactly does their marriage rob any children of anything?

Example #2

Elaine and Doris- they have 2 children. After they are legally able to get married, they do so- and now their 2 children have married parents- how exactly does their marriage rob these children of anything?

Explain how exactly gay marriage robs any children of anything other than having unmarried parents.

Silhouette refuses to answer this question.

Because it goes to the heart of her bigotry towards gays.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Explain how exactly gay marriage robs any children of anything other than having unmarried parents.

You mean again?

OK, children involved in "gay marriage" are deprived of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent 100% of the time. This sets them at a disadvantage to children raised in formative environments who have daily access to both genders as parental role models.

Two childless lesbians may not marry because marriage is an incentive program solely for children. The state has no other reason. And since I've just described how two lesbians don't fit the description of a couple the state wants to incentivize with the PRIVELEGE of marriage (it's not a right) for the best well being of children, two women or two men applying do not cut the muster. Two heteros do, childless or not; so they do not interfere with the standard. The state anticipates statistically that at some point a childless hetero couple will either have their own young or adopt them into a father/mother environment necessary for that child's proper formation of self esteem (his or her gender will always be represented in that home) and social interaction with both genders as the child leaves the home later in life.

Again- how does gay marriage change any of that?

Again- an example
Couple a: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- not married.
Couple b: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- married.

How are the children of Couple b harmed by that marriage?

The only difference is that the children of Couple B have married parents.

So why do you want to deprive the children of homosexuals of having married parents?

Why do you want to deliberately deprive children of a mother or a father? Contrary to Leftist babble, children need both and are at a loss when one is missing. It's terrible when it happens by vicissitude, but doing it on purpose is just cruel.

 

[Syriusly]

Explain how exactly gay marriage robs any children of anything other than having unmarried parents.

You mean again?

OK, children involved in "gay marriage" are deprived of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent 100% of the time. This sets them at a disadvantage to children raised in formative environments who have daily access to both genders as parental role models.

Two childless lesbians may not marry because marriage is an incentive program solely for children. The state has no other reason. And since I've just described how two lesbians don't fit the description of a couple the state wants to incentivize with the PRIVELEGE of marriage (it's not a right) for the best well being of children, two women or two men applying do not cut the muster. Two heteros do, childless or not; so they do not interfere with the standard. The state anticipates statistically that at some point a childless hetero couple will either have their own young or adopt them into a father/mother environment necessary for that child's proper formation of self esteem (his or her gender will always be represented in that home) and social interaction with both genders as the child leaves the home later in life.

Again- how does gay marriage change any of that?

Again- an example
Couple a: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- not married.
Couple b: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- married.

How are the children of Couple b harmed by that marriage?

The only difference is that the children of Couple B have married parents.

So why do you want to deprive the children of homosexuals of having married parents?

Why do you want to deliberately deprive children of a mother or a father? Contrary to Leftist babble, children need both and are at a loss when one is missing. It's terrible when it happens by vicissitude, but doing it on purpose is just cruel.

And you danced and dance away from actually responding to my question- just like Silhouette- just like every homophobe- again:

Again- how does gay marriage change any of that?

Again- an example
Couple a: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- not married.
Couple b: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- married.

How are the children of Couple b harmed by that marriage?

The only difference is that the children of Couple B have married parents.

So why do you want to deprive the children of homosexuals of having married parents?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Explain how exactly gay marriage robs any children of anything other than having unmarried parents.

You mean again?

OK, children involved in "gay marriage" are deprived of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent 100% of the time. This sets them at a disadvantage to children raised in formative environments who have daily access to both genders as parental role models.

Two childless lesbians may not marry because marriage is an incentive program solely for children. The state has no other reason. And since I've just described how two lesbians don't fit the description of a couple the state wants to incentivize with the PRIVELEGE of marriage (it's not a right) for the best well being of children, two women or two men applying do not cut the muster. Two heteros do, childless or not; so they do not interfere with the standard. The state anticipates statistically that at some point a childless hetero couple will either have their own young or adopt them into a father/mother environment necessary for that child's proper formation of self esteem (his or her gender will always be represented in that home) and social interaction with both genders as the child leaves the home later in life.

Again- how does gay marriage change any of that?

Again- an example
Couple a: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- not married.
Couple b: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- married.

How are the children of Couple b harmed by that marriage?

The only difference is that the children of Couple B have married parents.

So why do you want to deprive the children of homosexuals of having married parents?

Why do you want to deliberately deprive children of a mother or a father? Contrary to Leftist babble, children need both and are at a loss when one is missing. It's terrible when it happens by vicissitude, but doing it on purpose is just cruel.

And you danced and dance away from actually responding to my question- just like Silhouette- just like every homophobe- again:

Again- how does gay marriage change any of that?

Again- an example
Couple a: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- not married.
Couple b: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- married.

How are the children of Couple b harmed by that marriage?

The only difference is that the children of Couple B have married parents.

So why do you want to deprive the children of homosexuals of having married parents?

I just said how children are harmed. You're just being dense.

 

[Montrovant]

Explain how exactly gay marriage robs any children of anything other than having unmarried parents.

You mean again?

OK, children involved in "gay marriage" are deprived of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent 100% of the time. This sets them at a disadvantage to children raised in formative environments who have daily access to both genders as parental role models.

Two childless lesbians may not marry because marriage is an incentive program solely for children. The state has no other reason. And since I've just described how two lesbians don't fit the description of a couple the state wants to incentivize with the PRIVELEGE of marriage (it's not a right) for the best well being of children, two women or two men applying do not cut the muster. Two heteros do, childless or not; so they do not interfere with the standard. The state anticipates statistically that at some point a childless hetero couple will either have their own young or adopt them into a father/mother environment necessary for that child's proper formation of self esteem (his or her gender will always be represented in that home) and social interaction with both genders as the child leaves the home later in life.

Again- how does gay marriage change any of that?

Again- an example
Couple a: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- not married.
Couple b: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- married.

How are the children of Couple b harmed by that marriage?

The only difference is that the children of Couple B have married parents.

So why do you want to deprive the children of homosexuals of having married parents?

Why do you want to deliberately deprive children of a mother or a father? Contrary to Leftist babble, children need both and are at a loss when one is missing. It's terrible when it happens by vicissitude, but doing it on purpose is just cruel.

And you danced and dance away from actually responding to my question- just like Silhouette- just like every homophobe- again:

Again- how does gay marriage change any of that?

Again- an example
Couple a: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- not married.
Couple b: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- married.

How are the children of Couple b harmed by that marriage?

The only difference is that the children of Couple B have married parents.

So why do you want to deprive the children of homosexuals of having married parents?

I just said how children are harmed. You're just being dense.

Unless those children would be with a heterosexual couple if it weren't for gay marriage, how does it harm them? It seems that, without gay marriage, they would either be with a non-married gay couple or possibly remain orphans if we're talking about gay married couples adopting.

Again, if this were a country in which nearly all marriages resulted in children and nearly all of those marriages remained together, if nearly all orphaned children were adopted by heterosexual couples and remained with those couples, etc. this would be a different discussion. But in a country with a decently high divorce rate, plenty of single parents, and, so far as I've ever heard or read, many orphaned children unable to find good homes, how does gay marriage actually hurt children?

 

[Montrovant]

I think you may be missing his point.

What you say is only true if the children being discussed would be raised by two different gender parents, if only homosexual marriage were not legal.

Also, where do you get this information that the state anticipates a childless couple will either have their own young or adopt them? That seems pretty obviously to be your own opinion having nothing to do with the actual institution of marriage in this country.

Gay lifestyle marriage isn't legal in most states. Only three or four? Five maybe? The rest it is illegal regardless of illegal lower circuit court defiance (contempt) of the Supreme's 2013 Windsor "states' choice" ruling..

Where do I get the information that a state would anticipate a childless hetero marriage would result in live births? Biology that I took in junior high school. And common sense. All marriages ostensibly start out with no children and then progress to children. At least ideally they do.

If the point is belabored I can guarantee you that any sitting judge who is impartial will admit that a state only is in the business of incentivizing the privelege of marriage with perks only to set up a good formative environment for children expected to arrive. Outside of that, what rational reason would there be to incentivize anyone to legally formalize their relationship with anyone else? The state and insurance companies lose money on marriage. There has to be some reason that the state sees as a personal benefit to itself for giving married people tax breaks. That benefit would be the best formation of its future citizens in the most stable and functional environment with the best psychological backdrop within which to form the minds of its future citizens to be well-adjusted.

Otherwise crime rates statistically escalate as does mental illness and indigency. So we lure in father/mother to care for children so they can form their gender-appropriate self esteem and social adjustments interacting with the gender opposite themselves also so that they are the best well balanced citizens when they fledge. As adults thusly raised, they are less expensive to society.

Considering you just dismissed many court rulings by various sitting judges throughout the country out of hand, I put no stock in your definition of 'impartial'.

I think it would be more accurate to say that any sitting judge who agrees with you will state what you did.