6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb's Up to States' Choice on Gay Marriage

[frigidweirdo]

Gay marriage is one of those issues which helps focus the people's attention away from the real issues...

I'm pretty sure kids who want/need both blood parents incentivized to be in their home think of so-called "gay marriage" as a real issue..

I'm not saying it isn't an issue. I'm saying it's a minor issue in comparison with the issues that really should be at the forefront of politics but aren't because those controlling politics don't want them to be discussed.

Also, the actual issue is one of civil rights and freedoms, which somehow also manages to get ignored in most of the debate. People claim they can "support the constitution and bill of rights" and yet want to pound down on people as if it didn't exist.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm pretty sure kids who want/need both blood parents incentivized to be in their home think of so-called "gay marriage" as a real issue..

I'm not saying it isn't an issue. I'm saying it's a minor issue in comparison with the issues that really should be at the forefront of politics
.

Sorry, the formative environment that the state incentivizes for children to be in is THE ONLY ISSUE AND REASON STATES ARE INVOLVED IN MARRIAGE AT ALL. A state's involvement in marriage is by, about and for any children that will likely result to be in that home. The state could give a fig about the adults in the home outside that parameter otherwise.

 

[Syriusly]

Gay marriage is one of those issues which helps focus the people's attention away from the real issues...

I'm pretty sure kids who want/need both blood parents incentivized to be in their home think of so-called "gay marriage" as a real issue..

Kids who want their parents to be married want their parents to be married- whether they are gay or straight.

You are the one telling the kids of gay couples that they don't deserve married parents.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm pretty sure kids who want/need both blood parents incentivized to be in their home think of so-called "gay marriage" as a real issue..

I'm not saying it isn't an issue. I'm saying it's a minor issue in comparison with the issues that really should be at the forefront of politics
.

Sorry, the formative environment that the state incentivizes for children to be in is THE ONLY ISSUE AND REASON STATES ARE INVOLVED IN MARRIAGE AT ALL. A state's involvement in marriage is by, about and for any children that will likely result to be in that home..

Clearly that is false.

Since it has been pointed out to you over and over no need to point out why again.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm pretty sure kids who want/need both blood parents incentivized to be in their home think of so-called "gay marriage" as a real issue..

I'm not saying it isn't an issue. I'm saying it's a minor issue in comparison with the issues that really should be at the forefront of politics
.

Sorry, the formative environment that the state incentivizes for children to be in is THE ONLY ISSUE AND REASON STATES ARE INVOLVED IN MARRIAGE AT ALL. A state's involvement in marriage is by, about and for any children that will likely result to be in that home. The state could give a fig about the adults in the home outside that parameter otherwise.

So? It's still a minor issue. It's not the massive issue that is being played out in the US to divert away from the really, REALLY big issues which are the way the govt is run, elected and chosen, and who the hell controls these people.

 

[Silhouette]

Sorry, the formative environment that the state incentivizes for children to be in is THE ONLY ISSUE AND REASON STATES ARE INVOLVED IN MARRIAGE AT ALL. A state's involvement in marriage is by, about and for any children that will likely result to be in that home. The state could give a fig about the adults in the home outside that parameter otherwise.

So? It's still a minor issue. It's not the massive issue that is being played out in the US to divert away from the really, REALLY big issues which are the way the govt is run, elected and chosen, and who the hell controls these people.

So what you're saying is that you've lost the debate and now you'd like to completely change the subject so nobody notices?

 

[Seawytch]

Gay marriage is one of those issues which helps focus the people's attention away from the real issues...

I'm pretty sure kids who want/need both blood parents incentivized to be in their home think of so-called "gay marriage" as a real issue..

Kids who want their parents to be married want their parents to be married- whether they are gay or straight.

You are the one telling the kids of gay couples that they don't deserve married parents.

Yup...and I think Sil should go say it to their faces...get to KNOW some gay families.

 

[Silhouette]

Yup...and I think Sil should go say it to their faces...get to KNOW some gay families.

You're forgetting I used to live near the bay area. I've met them. In droves. And my observation as well as of others is that the kids from those families were so mixed up "in private" that it was very sad. I felt very bad for them. They have their public "see there's nothing wrong here at all!" face and then you hear their kids talk and watch them act when they're not "on for public view"...

And no, it wasn't because "society didn't accept them". That society encourages that type of thing lock, stock and barrel. If you dare to defy that iron-rule in that town...watch out. So the source was something else. Maybe it was a coincidence. Maybe not. But using kids as lab rats over a couple of generations isn't the way to find that out.

And you won't get any help from the APA on objective studies to evaluate kids of gay arrangements. Oh HELL no...not unless you want your research funding permanently revoked or your license to practice torn into bits..

 

[Syriusly]

Yup...and I think Sil should go say it to their faces...get to KNOW some gay families.

You're forgetting I used to live near the bay area. I've met them. In droves. And my observation as well as of others is that the kids from those families were so mixed up "in private" that it was very sad...

Oh now you claim to have lived 'near the bay area'? LOL....the story keeps evolving.

As someone who does live in the bay area, and who actually knows children of same gender couples, and whose child goes to school with children of same gender couples, those children are no more- and no less- screwed up than the children of heterosexual parents.

Seriously the kids that are the most screwed up are the ones who have been abandoned by their parents and are struggling along being raised in group homes or by their grandparents. Not the children's fault of course, but 'same gender' marriage wouldn't affect them either way.

The only children that 'same gender' marriage affects are the children of same gender couples- they get to have married parents like their straight friends.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sorry, the formative environment that the state incentivizes for children to be in is THE ONLY ISSUE AND REASON STATES ARE INVOLVED IN MARRIAGE AT ALL. A state's involvement in marriage is by, about and for any children that will likely result to be in that home. The state could give a fig about the adults in the home outside that parameter otherwise.

So? It's still a minor issue. It's not the massive issue that is being played out in the US to divert away from the really, REALLY big issues which are the way the govt is run, elected and chosen, and who the hell controls these people.

So what you're saying is that you've lost the debate and now you'd like to completely change the subject so nobody notices?

Blah, blah, blah. You're interested in winning and losing huh? Great, well go find people who are uber-competitive and go annoy then instead.

I'm more interested in proper debate. If you're ready for proper debate, then reply to my posts. If not, choose others.

Also, what I replied in the first place was about this being a more minor issue. I don't seem to have changed tact from that at all....

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Gay marriage is one of those issues which helps focus the people's attention away from the real issues...

I'm pretty sure kids who want/need both blood parents incentivized to be in their home think of so-called "gay marriage" as a real issue..

I'm not saying it isn't an issue. I'm saying it's a minor issue in comparison with the issues that really should be at the forefront of politics but aren't because those controlling politics don't want them to be discussed.

Also, the actual issue is one of civil rights and freedoms, which somehow also manages to get ignored in most of the debate. People claim they can "support the constitution and bill of rights" and yet want to pound down on people as if it didn't exist.

Normalizing sexual abnormality, normalizes the perversion of human reasoning that such represents... calling that minor, is tantamount to calling the exchange of "Fairness" for Actuarial Lending Principle, a 'minor tweak' in lending practices... .

In case ya missed it, that would-be 'minor tweak' resulted in the catastrophic failure of the international financial markets. So... some of us feel that such unprincipled notions being set upon the cultural nucleus, is a bad idea and we'd like to avoid the catastrophe that MUST follow such... .

As a result we insist on respecting the natural law which defines marriage as the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Normalizing sexual abnormality, normalizes the perversion of human reasoning that such represents... calling that minor, is tantamount to calling the exchange of "Fairness" for Actuarial Lending Principle, a 'minor tweak' in lending practices... .

In case ya missed it, that would-be 'minor tweak' resulted in the catastrophic failure of the international financial markets. So... some of us feel that such unprincipled notions being set upon the cultural nucleus, is a bad idea and we'd like to avoid the catastrophe that MUST follow such... .

As a result we insist on respecting the natural law which defines marriage as the joining of one man and one woman.

So because something is "abnormal" in your view, means it should be banned outright?

You know Christianity made it bad (they call them sins) for people to have sex outside of marriage, but they don't stop people from marrying who have had sex before marriage, why not?

The main point would be, which part of the Bill or Rights and 14th Amendment don't you agree with. You're allowed your opinion, but telling others what to do is big govt, it takes away liberty, freedom and the lot.

The definition of marriage huh?

South Africa says it's between two consenting adults. The UK says it's between two consenting adults. New Zealand says it's between two consenting adults. Canada says it's between two consenting adults. More than half of the US says it's between two consenting adults. That's MOST of the English speaking world as a first language that defines marriage as between two consenting adults and not between a man and a woman. Your dictionary is way behind the times.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Normalizing sexual abnormality, normalizes the perversion of human reasoning that such represents... calling that minor, is tantamount to calling the exchange of "Fairness" for Actuarial Lending Principle, a 'minor tweak' in lending practices... .

In case ya missed it, that would-be 'minor tweak' resulted in the catastrophic failure of the international financial markets. So... some of us feel that such unprincipled notions being set upon the cultural nucleus, is a bad idea and we'd like to avoid the catastrophe that MUST follow such... .

As a result we insist on respecting the natural law which defines marriage as the joining of one man and one woman.

So because something is "abnormal" in your view, means it should be banned outright?

There is absolutely NOTHING in anything I have EVER said, which could lead ANY reasonably intelligent person to such an inference.

So you're either a liar... or you're delusional, suffering severe psychosis, which presents with you reading that which does not exist and writing public responses to that which you've imagined, projecting such upon the innocent.

Now... which is it?

 

[Silhouette]

The definition of marriage huh?....South Africa says it's between two consenting adults. The UK says it's between two consenting adults. New Zealand says it's between two consenting adults. Canada says it's between two consenting adults. More than half of the US says it's between two consenting adults. That's MOST of the English speaking world as a first language that defines marriage as between two consenting adults and not between a man and a woman. Your dictionary is way behind the times.

Oh yes, but then there's this:

**********

"The highest human rights court in Europe shattered hopes that it would judicially impose same-sex marriage when it told a male to female transsexual and his wife that a civil union should be good enough for them.
European human rights law does not require countries to “grant access to marriage to same-sex couples,” according to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in a case that tests the remote boundaries of possibility in law and fact....

...The judgment says that European human rights law recognizes the “fundamental right of a man and woman to marry and to found a family” and “enshrines the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman.” It explains how no European consensus on same-sex marriages exists, as only 10 of the 47 countries bound by the treaty allow such designations." European court Gay marriage is not a human right News LifeSite

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The definition of marriage huh?....South Africa says it's between two consenting adults. The UK says it's between two consenting adults. New Zealand says it's between two consenting adults. Canada says it's between two consenting adults. More than half of the US says it's between two consenting adults. That's MOST of the English speaking world as a first language that defines marriage as between two consenting adults and not between a man and a woman. Your dictionary is way behind the times.

Oh yes, but then there's this:

**********

"The highest human rights court in Europe shattered hopes that it would judicially impose same-sex marriage when it told a male to female transsexual and his wife that a civil union should be good enough for them.
European human rights law does not require countries to “grant access to marriage to same-sex couples,” according to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in a case that tests the remote boundaries of possibility in law and fact....

...The judgment says that European human rights law recognizes the “fundamental right of a man and woman to marry and to found a family” and “enshrines the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman.” It explains how no European consensus on same-sex marriages exists, as only 10 of the 47 countries bound by the treaty allow such designations." European court Gay marriage is not a human right News LifeSite

No one cares, but you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Normalizing sexual abnormality, normalizes the perversion of human reasoning that such represents... calling that minor, is tantamount to calling the exchange of "Fairness" for Actuarial Lending Principle, a 'minor tweak' in lending practices... .

In case ya missed it, that would-be 'minor tweak' resulted in the catastrophic failure of the international financial markets. So... some of us feel that such unprincipled notions being set upon the cultural nucleus, is a bad idea and we'd like to avoid the catastrophe that MUST follow such... .

As a result we insist on respecting the natural law which defines marriage as the joining of one man and one woman.

So because something is "abnormal" in your view, means it should be banned outright?

There is absolutely NOTHING in anything I have EVER said, which could lead ANY reasonably intelligent person to such an inference.

So you're either a liar... or you're delusional, suffering severe psychosis, which presents with you reading that which does not exist and writing public responses to that which you've imagined, projecting such upon the innocent.

Now... which is it?

I asked a question. How can someone be a liar when asking a question like this.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Normalizing sexual abnormality, normalizes the perversion of human reasoning that such represents... calling that minor, is tantamount to calling the exchange of "Fairness" for Actuarial Lending Principle, a 'minor tweak' in lending practices... .

In case ya missed it, that would-be 'minor tweak' resulted in the catastrophic failure of the international financial markets. So... some of us feel that such unprincipled notions being set upon the cultural nucleus, is a bad idea and we'd like to avoid the catastrophe that MUST follow such... .

As a result we insist on respecting the natural law which defines marriage as the joining of one man and one woman.

So because something is "abnormal" in your view, means it should be banned outright?

There is absolutely NOTHING in anything I have EVER said, which could lead ANY reasonably intelligent person to such an inference.

So you're either a liar... or you're delusional, suffering severe psychosis, which presents with you reading that which does not exist and writing public responses to that which you've imagined, projecting such upon the innocent.

Now... which is it?

I asked a question. How can someone be a liar when asking a question like this.

Oh! That's answered in my response... Let's review for your edification:

There is absolutely NOTHING in anything I have EVER said, which could lead ANY reasonably intelligent person to such an inference.

So you're either a liar... or you're delusional, suffering severe psychosis, which presents with you reading that which does not exist and writing public responses to that which you've imagined, projecting such upon the innocent.

Now... which is it?

See? And based upon your query, it appears that the answer to my question is: "DELUSION".

 

[Silhouette]

I just find it interesting that every time an LGBT cult member claims that they have overwhelming support from every corner of the earth, something like the verdict of the European court in my last post pops up. Or the Chic Fil-a protest. Or the "Boycott A&E" protest on facebook with over a million likes showed up within 24 hours to support Phil Robertson's (Duck Dynasty) opposition to gay marriage... or this from one of the most liberal thinking countries in Europe. Paris France 2013.

 

[mdk]

I just find it interesting that every time an LGBT cult member claims that they have overwhelming support from every corner of the earth, something like the verdict of the European court in my last post pops up. Or the Chic Fil-a protest. Or the "Boycott A&E" protest on facebook with over a million likes showed up within 24 hours to support Phil Robertson's (Duck Dynasty) opposition to gay marriage... or this from one of the most liberal thinking countries in Europe. Paris France 2013.

We all know that numerous polls that show a majority of Americans now support gay marriage are meaningless. The true gauge is Facebook "likes" and lines at a fast food restaurant.

Now you have to leave the continent to find support for your crusade. Why not shows pictures from the March for Marriage held in DC last June? The turnout for that event was beyond embarrassing.

By the way, a majority in France support gay marriage. lol

Poll shows 63 percent of French back gay marriage

 

[Silhouette]

By the way, a majority in France support gay marriage. lol

Poll shows 63 percent of French back gay marriage

Right. And this poll shows that 82% of people support gay marriage too I suppose? Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 512 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum