Another 2017 LGBT Court Case, & Specifically Gay Adoption Of Unwanted Kids: A Poll

[Skylar]

You aren't required to have children in order to marry, but you are required to provide the best framework in the statistical likelihood they come into your home. "Gay marriage" is the anti-framework of fathers for boys and mothers for girls.

There's no such requirement nor condition on any married couple. You've imagined it. There's no mention of 'statically likelihoods' in any of the rulings you've cited,nor are they cited as requirements for....anyone. You've imagined it all.

And your imagination isn't a legal standard, nor obligates anyone to do anything.

As elegantly demonstrated by the fact that same sex marriage is recognized in 50 of 50 States....despite years worth of your pseudo-legal ramblings.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You would argue that....and no court in the land would support you

Marriage is about a partnership.....Children are optional

You are categorically wrong on that. THE Court of the land has ALREADY agreed with me. Here's what Obergefell said about children and marriage contracts:
They said they were intrinsic to the whole idea of marriage in general. In fact children were given an entire subsection of the marriage discussion as the "third" area of importance in their list of important ideas intrinsic to marriage contracts. Here, let's look again: Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of child rearing, procreation, and education. See Pierce v.Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925);Meyer, 262 U. S., at 399. The Court has recognized these connections by describing the varied rights as a unified whole: “[T]he right to ‘marry, establish a home and bring up children’ is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.” Zablocki, 434 U. S., at 384

They go further to tie in children HARD to the marriage contract parameters here where they basically say "marriage is for children's best interests":

__ (slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests. See Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children as Amici Curiae 22–27.

So how does a contract that banishes a boy from a father or a girl from a mother for life "afford ....children's best interests"? Are either mothers or fathers "unimportant" staples in a girl or boy's life? Where is that in case law? Do you have a link?

You aren't required to have children in order to marry, but you are required to provide the best framework in the statistical likelihood they come into your home. "Gay marriage" is the anti-framework of fathers for boys and mothers for girls.

So poor, uneducated people living an inner city where the school system is not the best should not be allowed to marry? Answer the question honestly if you can


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Syriusly]

You would argue that....and no court in the land would support you

Marriage is about a partnership.....Children are optional

You are categorically wrong on that. THE Court of the land has ALREADY agreed with me. Here's what Obergefell said about children and marriage contracts:
They said they were intrinsic to the whole idea of marriage in general. In fact children were given an entire subsection of the marriage discussion as the "third" area of importance in their list of important ideas intrinsic to marriage contracts. Here, let's look again: Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of child rearing, procreation, and education. See Pierce v.Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925);Meyer, 262 U. S., at 399. The Court has recognized these connections by describing the varied rights as a unified whole: “[T]he right to ‘marry, establish a home and bring up children’ is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.” Zablocki, 434 U. S., at 384

They go further to tie in children HARD to the marriage contract parameters here where they basically say "marriage is for children's best interests":

__ (slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests. See Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children as Amici Curiae 22–27.

So how does a contract that banishes a boy from a father or a girl from a mother for life "afford ....children's best interests"? Are either mothers or fathers "unimportant" staples in a girl or boy's life? Where is that in case law? Do you have a link?

You aren't required to have children in order to marry, but you are required to provide the best framework in the statistical likelihood they come into your home. "Gay marriage" is the anti-framework of fathers for boys and mothers for girls.

Exactly why gays were permitted to marry

The Court has recognized these connections by describing the varied rights as a unified whole: “[T]he right to ‘marry, establish a home and bring up children’ is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.” Zablocki, 434 U. S., at 384

Worth repeating
Exactly why gays were permitted to marry

The Court has recognized these connections by describing the varied rights as a unified whole:
“[T]he right to ‘marry,
establish a home
and bring up children’
is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.” Zablocki, 434 U. S., at 384

All of which Silhouette wants to deprive gay Americans of.

 

[Syriusly]

Just pointing out that in Silhouettes own faux poll- 50% of the respondents support children having parents.

 

[Silhouette]

So poor, uneducated people living an inner city where the school system is not the best should not be allowed to marry? Answer the question honestly if you can

Poor fathers can offer a unique lesson in survival for their sons. Under educated girls in inner city will be propped up by a mother who knows their special struggles in school. So father/mother combinations in that regard are just as essential as in any other socioeconomic spread.

 

[Syriusly]

So poor, uneducated people living an inner city where the school system is not the best should not be allowed to marry? Answer the question honestly if you can

Poor fathers can offer a unique lesson in survival for their sons. Under educated girls in inner city will be propped up by a mother who knows their special struggles in school. So father/mother combinations in that regard are just as essential as in any other socioeconomic spread.

Yes poor fathers can- even if they are single dad's- or a dad divorced from his wife and doing his best to be part of his kids lives. Or if he is the biological dad and doing his best to be part of his kids lives as they are raised by their two mom's.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So poor, uneducated people living an inner city where the school system is not the best should not be allowed to marry? Answer the question honestly if you can

Poor fathers can offer a unique lesson in survival for their sons. Under educated girls in inner city will be propped up by a mother who knows their special struggles in school. So father/mother combinations in that regard are just as essential as in any other socioeconomic spread.

Poor fathers can offer a unique lesson in survival for their sons if they are around at all . Those mothers my be more concerned about survival with little time or energy to provide such and example to the child. The school is likely to be underfunded and sub standard ...yet you wont say that those people should not have children. And you won't admit that they are at a disadvantage. Your bigotry and stupidity wont let you see beyond the end of your nose and you still , ignorantly , think -or pretend to think- that banning marriage will prevent gay people from having kids.

Let me ask you this

If children need a mother and a father and you oppose gay marriage because of that would you also:

1. A ban on adoption by all single people-gay and straight.

2. A ban on divorce by any couple who has a child under a certain age, say ten

3. The removal of any children under 5 years of currently residing with a single parent-gay or straight to be placed with a male-female adoptive couple.

4. The imposition of stiff civil and possibly criminal penalties for any woman who has a child outside of marriage

5. Free and available no questions asked abortion and contraception for every woman who is not married to a man

I am being completely serious here. It’s just common sense. Any one of these measures would go a lot farther towards ensuring that all children have a mom and a dad, than banning same sex marriage. In fact, the only thing that banning same sex marriage will do as far as kid are concerned is to ensure that FEWER have two legal parents and the security of having married parents. Now, tell us more about how concerned you are about the children.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So poor, uneducated people living an inner city where the school system is not the best should not be allowed to marry? Answer the question honestly if you can

Poor fathers can offer a unique lesson in survival for their sons. Under educated girls in inner city will be propped up by a mother who knows their special struggles in school. So father/mother combinations in that regard are just as essential as in any other socioeconomic spread.

Those who contend that they want to ban same sex marriage for the children are using the wrong argument. It is in fact , a stupid argument

Consider this......regardless of what children need, there will always be children who do not have both a mom and a dad. Can we agree on that? Please explain how not allowing gays to marry and/or adopt is going to change that. As I see it, it’s a Non-sequitur. Regardless of the validity of your premise about children’s needs- there is a disconnect between it and your conclusion regarding marriage and adoption. MORE CHILDREN WILL NOT HAVE A MOM AND A DAD IF SAME SX MARRIAGE IS BANNED. HOWEVER, MORE CHILDREN WILL BE DEPRIVED OF A STABLE AND PERMENANT HOME WITH AT LEAST ONE, AND PREFERABLY TWO, LEGAL GUARDIANS

I've pointed that out many times before and have never gotten anything close to an answer that makes sense. I'm starting to think that there is no answer that makes sense.

Here are some fun facts:

There are more children waiting to be adopted than there are traditional, opposite sex couples willing and qualified to adopt. http://www.fostercareadoption.us/custom1.php

Including same sex couples in adoption-there are an estimated 2M-will go a long way towards correcting that imbalance. In 2008 there were 129,000 children waiting to be adopted, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported. In 2007, the Urban Institute reported that two million gay or lesbian individuals said they had considered adoption. The Urban Institute found that a national ban on gay or lesbian adoption would result in 9,000 to 14,000 children never being adopted. The national financial burden of caring for these children would range from $87 to $130 million and could cost states anywhere from $100,000 to $27 million. Additionally, these children would eventually age out of the foster care system. This means that at age 18 or 21, they are turned out of the system with no official family and no resources.

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/about_6746455_gay-lesbian-adoption.html#ixzz2veb5tgKI



http://www.ehow.com/about_6746455_gay-lesbian-adoption.html#ixzz2vb55w73S

Not allowing gays to adopt on the pretext that children need/deserve two parents of the opposite sex, or any other reason only ensures that more children will not have either a mother or a father

When we talk about adoption by gay people, most often we are not referring to situations a single person or a couple go to an adoption agency to adopt an unrelated child. Rather, the more likely scenario is where a child is already living with a gay parson-usually a biological parent- and that person wants to allow their partner to adopt as a second parent. Not allowing adoption will not change the fact that the child has same sex parent figures. However, It will mean that the child will not have the protections and benefits of having two legal parents. http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/second-parent-adoption

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So poor, uneducated people living an inner city where the school system is not the best should not be allowed to marry? Answer the question honestly if you can

Poor fathers can offer a unique lesson in survival for their sons. Under educated girls in inner city will be propped up by a mother who knows their special struggles in school. So father/mother combinations in that regard are just as essential as in any other socioeconomic spread.

Children are Also Victims When Gay and Lesbian Parents and Potential Parents are Discriminated Against by Progressive Patriot (Undated)



I am decidedly weary people of who use children and child rearing issues as pawns in the failed attempts to derail same sex marriage. Those children, who more than anything, need a stable, secure and loving home have a major stake in the issue. Yet, there are those who persist in claiming that children need a mother and a father to the exclusion of all other considerations in order to assail same sex marriage. They will point to bogus and faulty studies that purportedly show that the developmental and emotional outcomes for children of same sex couples is inferior to that of other children. My purpose here to not to debunk those studies-I have done that elsewhere- but rather to address the fact that regardless of what studies show, it is a ludicrous and logically fallacious argument to make against same sex marriage. In plain English, it makes no sense. It's the wrong argument.

Even if the outcomes for children raised in same sex household were in fact different than other children Consider this: If we are to base our policies as to who can marry on who does the best jobs with children, perhaps we should be taking a hard look at certain socio-economic or ethnic groups who produce children who's development and wellbeing can be contrasted to that of other groups . Maybe we should look at inner city vs. suburban parenting outcomes to set marriage policy? Is anyone willing to go there?

And how about this: It is known that Asian American children tend to be higher achievers than others, so maybe should prohibit marriage in order to discourage child rearing by white Americans whose children might not do as well.

The fact is that there are a couple of million kids already in the care of gay people and couples. Many are the biological children of a gay person. Those children can benefit greatly if their parent is able to marry and the non-biological parent is able to adopt as a second parent. There are many economic, legal and social benefits to doing so. Not allowing the adults to marry only serves to punish those children and place them at a disadvantage.

In some cases gay people adopt children through agencies. Yes, the idea that gay people can adopt has been way out ahead of gay marriage. My home state of New Jersey has been allowing joint adoption by same sex couples since 1997, the first state to do so. These are children who had NO parents until these gay folks stepped up. Maybe someone would like to compare the long term outcomes for children who grow up as wards of the state with those raised by same sex couples. Gay people can and will adopt children regardless of whether or not the parent(s) can marry so why deprive the children the advantages-discussed above- of having married parent

Lastly, perhaps the smallest number of children who are in the care of gay and lesbian parents are those who were conceived with the use of surrogacy, or artificial insemination. These are children who, arguably would not have been born at all While there are those who may believe that their souls might have otherwise been born into a more advantageous environment, we really don’t know that, What we do know is that those children are real, and once again, those children will benefit from having married parents.

So, I ask. What do we do, even if the highly questionable assertion that gay parenting is inferior is correct? Do we discourage or even prohibit gays from having children in their care? Or do we adapt policies to support them and maximize their ability to care for those children? Do we enact complex policies regarding which groups will be encouraged and which will be discouraged from having children based on some measure of their parenting ability which will, most assuredly be disputed. Or, do we treat everyone equally.

And lastly, I submit to you that yes, it is possible that the number of additional children living with gay parents will increase as the result of same sex marriage

Some will adopt and some will have children with medical/ scientific intervention. But those children, like countless others in the care of gay couples, will have two legal parents who are married. A tremendous advantage. And those adopted children had no parents and the ones who were conceived with help, would not have been born at all

If you don't feel stupid now, well, I can only conclude that you are STUPID!

 

[Syriusly]

So poor, uneducated people living an inner city where the school system is not the best should not be allowed to marry? Answer the question honestly if you can

Poor fathers can offer a unique lesson in survival for their sons. Under educated girls in inner city will be propped up by a mother who knows their special struggles in school. So father/mother combinations in that regard are just as essential as in any other socioeconomic spread.

Children are Also Victims When Gay and Lesbian Parents and Potential Parents are Discriminated Against by Progressive Patriot (Undated)



I am decidedly weary people of who use children and child rearing issues as pawns in the failed attempts to derail same sex marriage. Those children, who more than anything, need a stable, secure and loving home have a major stake in the issue. Yet, there are those who persist in claiming that children need a mother and a father to the exclusion of all other considerations in order to assail same sex marriage. They will point to bogus and faulty studies that purportedly show that the developmental and emotional outcomes for children of same sex couples is inferior to that of other children. My purpose here to not to debunk those studies-I have done that elsewhere- but rather to address the fact that regardless of what studies show, it is a ludicrous and logically fallacious argument to make against same sex marriage. In plain English, it makes no sense. It's the wrong argument.

Even if the outcomes for children raised in same sex household were in fact different than other children Consider this: If we are to base our policies as to who can marry on who does the best jobs with children, perhaps we should be taking a hard look at certain socio-economic or ethnic groups who produce children who's development and wellbeing can be contrasted to that of other groups . Maybe we should look at inner city vs. suburban parenting outcomes to set marriage policy? Is anyone willing to go there?

And how about this: It is known that Asian American children tend to be higher achievers than others, so maybe should prohibit marriage in order to discourage child rearing by white Americans whose children might not do as well.

The fact is that there are a couple of million kids already in the care of gay people and couples. Many are the biological children of a gay person. Those children can benefit greatly if their parent is able to marry and the non-biological parent is able to adopt as a second parent. There are many economic, legal and social benefits to doing so. Not allowing the adults to marry only serves to punish those children and place them at a disadvantage.

In some cases gay people adopt children through agencies. Yes, the idea that gay people can adopt has been way out ahead of gay marriage. My home state of New Jersey has been allowing joint adoption by same sex couples since 1997, the first state to do so. These are children who had NO parents until these gay folks stepped up. Maybe someone would like to compare the long term outcomes for children who grow up as wards of the state with those raised by same sex couples. Gay people can and will adopt children regardless of whether or not the parent(s) can marry so why deprive the children the advantages-discussed above- of having married parent

Lastly, perhaps the smallest number of children who are in the care of gay and lesbian parents are those who were conceived with the use of surrogacy, or artificial insemination. These are children who, arguably would not have been born at all While there are those who may believe that their souls might have otherwise been born into a more advantageous environment, we really don’t know that, What we do know is that those children are real, and once again, those children will benefit from having married parents.

So, I ask. What do we do, even if the highly questionable assertion that gay parenting is inferior is correct? Do we discourage or even prohibit gays from having children in their care? Or do we adapt policies to support them and maximize their ability to care for those children? Do we enact complex policies regarding which groups will be encouraged and which will be discouraged from having children based on some measure of their parenting ability which will, most assuredly be disputed. Or, do we treat everyone equally.

And lastly, I submit to you that yes, it is possible that the number of additional children living with gay parents will increase as the result of same sex marriage

Some will adopt and some will have children with medical/ scientific intervention. But those children, like countless others in the care of gay couples, will have two legal parents who are married. A tremendous advantage. And those adopted children had no parents and the ones who were conceived with help, would not have been born at all

If you don't feel stupid now, well, I can only conclude that you are STUPID!

Thank you. The rational is wasted on Silhouette and the rest of the bigots- but thank you.

These people would literally prefer children to have no parents at all- to be aged out of the system and kicked out into the world with no family at all- rather than have 1 or 2 gay parents.

And the only explanation for that is that they really hate these kids.

 

[Silhouette]

No Syriusly. People just don't want boys & girls banished for life from fathers & mothers using the force of law through a contract. Gay marriage is that contract. Go back & read the OP.

 

[Skylar]

No Syriusly. People just don't want boys & girls banished for life from fathers & mothers using the force of law through a contract. Gay marriage is that contract. Go back & read the OP.

The courts have found that bans of same sex marriage harm children.

Ignore away. But ignoring the explicit findings of the Supreme Court isn't a legal argument, Sil.

 

[Silhouette]

Well the facts in the OP find that gay marriage harms children. And the laws protecting children read such & uniquely that if one even suspects harm one is required to act on kids' behalf even without proof. Did you know that?

 

[Skylar]

Well the facts in the OP find that gay marriage harms children.

Says you, citing you. The Supreme Court as found the opposite; that bans on same sex marriage harm and humiliate children.

You're insisting that we ignore the explicit findings of the Supreme Court and accept your imagination as the law.

Um, no.

 

[Silhouette]

Let me repeat something you skipped over just now:

And the laws protecting children read such & uniquely that if one even suspects harm one is required to act on kids' behalf even without proof. Did you know that?

After reading the OP, I and others suspect harm. That's problematic. Another thing you and readers here should bear in mind is that not only should you act to protect when you just suspect harm (but have no proof necessarily), you are required by law to act.

 

[Skylar]

Let me repeat something you skipped over just now:

And the laws protecting children read such & uniquely that if one even suspects harm one is required to act on kids' behalf even without proof. Did you know that?

After reading the OP, I and others suspect harm. That's problematic. Another thing you and readers here should bear in mind is that not only should you act to protect when you just suspect harm (but have no proof necessarily), you are required by law to act.

You can repeat your personal opinion as much as you like. The Supreme Court still contradicts you, finding that bans on same sex marriage hurt and humiliate children.

The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Obergefell v. Hodges

That's their legal findings. And in any discussion of the law, the findings of the Supreme Court trump your imagination.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ I note you did not comment on the requirements of acting when one suspects child endangerment.

 

[Skylar]

^^ I note you did not comment on the requirements of acting when one suspects child endangerment.

Note your personal opinion still doesn't trump the explicit findings of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has found that bans on same sex marriage harm children. If you want to make a legal argument, you have to assimilate this finding.

You can't. You're stuck. Exactly where you've been stuck for years.

 

[Silhouette]

A reasonable person after reading the OP would at the least suspect child endangerment. As such, they are required to act. And still you won't talk about that.. By the way, a reasonable person includes a judge or Justice of the US Supreme Court.

 

[Skylar]

A reasonable person after reading the OP would at the least suspect child endangerment. As such, they are required to act. And still you won't talk about that.. By the way, a reasonable person includes a judge or Justice of the US Supreme Court.

A reasonable person wouldn't ignore the explicit findings of the Supreme Court in a discussion about the law.

You do. The Supreme Court contradicts you, explicitly and unambiguously.

The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Obergefell v. Hodges

You're stuck. You can't get past this. You're been stuck here for years, Sil. And you've made zero progress.