Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[bripat9643]

The meaning of words change. 100 years ago, marriage meant something entirely different than what it means today. Women were treated as property, for example. If you want to live in a bubble where nothing ever changes, too bad. Such a place does not exist.

Meanwhile, there is no rational basis to deny same-sex couples marriage license. Denying same-sex couples marriage licenses create demonstrable harms, but not a single demonstrable benefit.

Allowing same sex marriages causes demonstrable harm. There is a perfectly rational basis for not allowing them: gays can't reproduce. Therefor, there is no reason to grant them the marriage franchise.

So...the ability to reproduce is a requirement for legal marriage? In what state?

Pretending to be stupid isn't a winning argument.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Rikurzhen, you posted "Why does society care that two people love each other? The legal and social benefits only kick in when kids are born." That's not correct. There are economic benefits to marriage for childless people in terms of employment benefits, social security, health care decision making ..... This was actually the basis for striking down DOMA, and there was no mention there of kids.

I apologize for not being clear. What I wrote was about how laws SHOULD be. Those economic benefits to marriage should not exist for couples without kids, for after all, marriage is about love. Society doesn't benefit when you love your spouse. Society benefits when you sacrifice and raise kids.

And gays, who can and do have children, get the goodies too, right?

Not if they're human rights violators. If they adopt a child, then yes. If they enter their marriage with a child from a failed normal marriage, then yes. But purposely creating a child in order to deprive the child of its human rights, no, that cannot be encouraged.

Sorry...already done that...and our daughter is a beautiful child grown to an adult.

If a woman took thalidomide and her baby wasn't affected with malformed limbs or other birth defects, then I'd be happy for her and her child, but her decision to take the drug knowing the risk it imposed on her child is not something that should be affirmed. You violated your child's human rights. Luckily for you she doesn't see that as a big deal.

 

[ShackledNation]

Yes Pop, we have sex, we have relationships and we have children. We also have legal civil marriage in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Our inability to procreate with each other, is not a consideration in whether or not we achieve marriage equality. Your strawman is irrelevant and your analogy way off. It is more like you wish to deny me a license because my car runs on something other than gasoline.

It may not be a consideration for you, but it is a consideration for the voters and for rational people. The is no rational basis to extend marriage to gay couples. None.

You have a faulty understanding of Constitutional Law. Laws must pass the rational basis standard, meaning there must be a rational basis for the law. Thus, laws banning same-sex marriage must have a rational basis for their existence. You have completely flipped the burden of proof from the government (defendents) to the plaintiffs. That is simply wrong.

There is no rational basis to discriminate against same-sex couples and deny them the right to marry. Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

Spare me the "rational basis" crap. There are literally millions of laws on the books. Are you telling me they have all had the "rational basis" rule applied to them? Furthermore, there is a rational basis for excluding gays from marriage: they can't reproduce.

End of discussion.

If the law has been challenged in court, then yes, the rational basis test applies - or a higher standard of review. That's how it works. Is this news to you? Wow.

If the rational basis reason for excluding gays is "they can't reproduce" then infertile heterosexual couples would be excluded as well. They aren't, thus that argument holds no water.

 

[bripat9643]

Rikurzhen, you posted "Why does society care that two people love each other? The legal and social benefits only kick in when kids are born." That's not correct. There are economic benefits to marriage for childless people in terms of employment benefits, social security, health care decision making ..... This was actually the basis for striking down DOMA, and there was no mention there of kids.

I apologize for not being clear. What I wrote was about how laws SHOULD be. Those economic benefits to marriage should not exist for couples without kids, for after all, marriage is about love. Society doesn't benefit when you love your spouse. Society benefits when you sacrifice and raise kids.

And gays, who can and do have children, get the goodies too, right?

Not if they're human rights violators. If they adopt a child, then yes. If they enter their marriage with a child from a failed normal marriage, then yes. But purposely creating a child in order to deprive the child of its human rights, no, that cannot be encouraged.

Sorry...already done that...and our daughter is a beautiful child grown to an adult.

If a woman took thalidomide and her baby wasn't affected with malformed limbs or other birth defects, then I'd be happy for her and her child, but her decision to take the drug knowing the risk it imposed on her child is not something that should be affirmed. You violated your child's human rights. Luckily for you she doesn't see that as a big deal.

Bodecea claims her child is a "beautiful adult," but for all we know her child could be a psychological mess.

 

[ShackledNation]

The meaning of words change. 100 years ago, marriage meant something entirely different than what it means today. Women were treated as property, for example. If you want to live in a bubble where nothing ever changes, too bad. Such a place does not exist.

Meanwhile, there is no rational basis to deny same-sex couples marriage license. Denying same-sex couples marriage licenses create demonstrable harms, but not a single demonstrable benefit.

Woman were treated like slaves?, another lie.

Strawman. I didn't say women were treated like slaves. Is lying all you can do?

 

[bripat9643]

Yes Pop, we have sex, we have relationships and we have children. We also have legal civil marriage in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Our inability to procreate with each other, is not a consideration in whether or not we achieve marriage equality. Your strawman is irrelevant and your analogy way off. It is more like you wish to deny me a license because my car runs on something other than gasoline.

It may not be a consideration for you, but it is a consideration for the voters and for rational people. The is no rational basis to extend marriage to gay couples. None.

You have a faulty understanding of Constitutional Law. Laws must pass the rational basis standard, meaning there must be a rational basis for the law. Thus, laws banning same-sex marriage must have a rational basis for their existence. You have completely flipped the burden of proof from the government (defendents) to the plaintiffs. That is simply wrong.

There is no rational basis to discriminate against same-sex couples and deny them the right to marry. Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

Spare me the "rational basis" crap. There are literally millions of laws on the books. Are you telling me they have all had the "rational basis" rule applied to them? Furthermore, there is a rational basis for excluding gays from marriage: they can't reproduce.

End of discussion.

If the law has been challenged in court, then yes. That's how it works. Is this news to you? Infertile couples can also not reproduce, yet they are allowed to marry. Reproduction has nothing to do with who is allowed to get a marriage license.

As has already been explained to you, for historical and other reasons we don't test couples for fertility prior to marriage. We don't know couples are infertile until they have failed to conceive, and that only happens after they are married.

The claim that reproduction has nothing to do with marriage couldn't be more absurd or more wrong. It obviously has everything to do with marriage. You can stick your fingers in your ears and yell "I can't hear you!" until doomsday, but that won't change the facts.

 

[bodecea]

Rikurzhen, you posted "Why does society care that two people love each other? The legal and social benefits only kick in when kids are born." That's not correct. There are economic benefits to marriage for childless people in terms of employment benefits, social security, health care decision making ..... This was actually the basis for striking down DOMA, and there was no mention there of kids.

I apologize for not being clear. What I wrote was about how laws SHOULD be. Those economic benefits to marriage should not exist for couples without kids, for after all, marriage is about love. Society doesn't benefit when you love your spouse. Society benefits when you sacrifice and raise kids.

And gays, who can and do have children, get the goodies too, right?

Not if they're human rights violators. If they adopt a child, then yes. If they enter their marriage with a child from a failed normal marriage, then yes. But purposely creating a child in order to deprive the child of its human rights, no, that cannot be encouraged.

Sorry...already done that...and our daughter is a beautiful child grown to an adult.

If a woman took thalidomide and her baby wasn't affected with malformed limbs or other birth defects, then I'd be happy for her and her child, but her decision to take the drug knowing the risk it imposed on her child is not something that should be affirmed. You violated your child's human rights. Luckily for you she doesn't see that as a big deal.

I just showed that to her...she was walking by on her way to work. She laughed. And said I sure run into a lot of idiots when I'm posting.

 

[elektra]

Gays are not excluded by law, they are excluded by their specific choice.

Excluded is the choice if children, silent victims.

 

[bodecea]

Gays are not excluded by law, they are excluded by their specific choice.

Excluded is the choice if children, silent victims.

So a legal choice excludes one from equal protection under the law? Where is that written?

 

[ShackledNation]

Yes Pop, we have sex, we have relationships and we have children. We also have legal civil marriage in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Our inability to procreate with each other, is not a consideration in whether or not we achieve marriage equality. Your strawman is irrelevant and your analogy way off. It is more like you wish to deny me a license because my car runs on something other than gasoline.

It may not be a consideration for you, but it is a consideration for the voters and for rational people. The is no rational basis to extend marriage to gay couples. None.

You have a faulty understanding of Constitutional Law. Laws must pass the rational basis standard, meaning there must be a rational basis for the law. Thus, laws banning same-sex marriage must have a rational basis for their existence. You have completely flipped the burden of proof from the government (defendents) to the plaintiffs. That is simply wrong.

There is no rational basis to discriminate against same-sex couples and deny them the right to marry. Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

Spare me the "rational basis" crap. There are literally millions of laws on the books. Are you telling me they have all had the "rational basis" rule applied to them? Furthermore, there is a rational basis for excluding gays from marriage: they can't reproduce.

End of discussion.

If the law has been challenged in court, then yes. That's how it works. Is this news to you? Infertile couples can also not reproduce, yet they are allowed to marry. Reproduction has nothing to do with who is allowed to get a marriage license.

As has already been explained to you, for historical and other reasons we don't test couples for fertility prior to marriage. We don't know couples are infertile until they have failed to conceive, and that only happens after they are married.

The claim that reproduction has nothing to do with marriage couldn't be more absurd or more wrong. It obviously has everything to do with marriage. You can stick your fingers in your ears and yell "I can't hear you!" until doomsday, but that won't change the facts.

No. We know for a fact that any couple with an older woman cannot conceive together. Age is already tested for marriage. Furthermore, a couple can fail to conceive before marriage. Marriage does not affect their ability to conceive. Reproduction has nothing to do with the marriage license. The license doesn't care whatsoever, hence why there is not even an attempt to screen out people who can't reproduce.

Additionally, Indiana, a state with a same-sex marriage ban, does not allow first cousins to marry unless they can't conceive. So the idea it is impossible to see if someone can't conceive is blatantly false, and if being able to have children had anything to do with marriage licenses that would be a stipulation.

You cannot get around that fact, which is why you resort to saying your assertion is "obvious" rather than actual refute my arguments or back up your own with something of substance.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I apologize for not being clear. What I wrote was about how laws SHOULD be. Those economic benefits to marriage should not exist for couples without kids, for after all, marriage is about love. Society doesn't benefit when you love your spouse. Society benefits when you sacrifice and raise kids.

And gays, who can and do have children, get the goodies too, right?

Not if they're human rights violators. If they adopt a child, then yes. If they enter their marriage with a child from a failed normal marriage, then yes. But purposely creating a child in order to deprive the child of its human rights, no, that cannot be encouraged.

Sorry...already done that...and our daughter is a beautiful child grown to an adult.

If a woman took thalidomide and her baby wasn't affected with malformed limbs or other birth defects, then I'd be happy for her and her child, but her decision to take the drug knowing the risk it imposed on her child is not something that should be affirmed. You violated your child's human rights. Luckily for you she doesn't see that as a big deal.

I just showed that to her...she was walking by on her way to work. She laughed. And said I sure run into a lot of idiots when I'm posting.

Next time your daughter passes by ask her how she feels about rape victims dealing with their ordeal and ask her if she thinks they should all deal with their trauma as Elizabeth Smart has dealt with her ordeal, because you know, well we all know, that everyone deals with trauma in the same way. Like this girl:

‘Knowing that the two people I love most don’t look like me and that I am not biologically related to them has been really tough.

‘There are times I’ve wished I’d never been born — as much as I love my parents, it’s just so sad not knowing who I am and where I came from.’

Gracie — the first British child of an egg and sperm donor to speak publicly about the complications such a start in life can cause — is eager to spread the word about the challenges facing donor-conceived children, but finds the subject so painful that she breaks down in tears several times during our interview.​

 

[bodecea]

And gays, who can and do have children, get the goodies too, right?

Not if they're human rights violators. If they adopt a child, then yes. If they enter their marriage with a child from a failed normal marriage, then yes. But purposely creating a child in order to deprive the child of its human rights, no, that cannot be encouraged.

Sorry...already done that...and our daughter is a beautiful child grown to an adult.

If a woman took thalidomide and her baby wasn't affected with malformed limbs or other birth defects, then I'd be happy for her and her child, but her decision to take the drug knowing the risk it imposed on her child is not something that should be affirmed. You violated your child's human rights. Luckily for you she doesn't see that as a big deal.

I just showed that to her...she was walking by on her way to work. She laughed. And said I sure run into a lot of idiots when I'm posting.

Next time your daughter passes by ask her how she feels about rape victims dealing with their ordeal and ask her if she thinks they should all deal with their trauma as Elizabeth Smart has dealt with her ordeal, because you know, well we all know, that everyone deals with trauma in the same way. Like this girl:

‘Knowing that the two people I love most don’t look like me and that I am not biologically related to them has been really tough.

‘There are times I’ve wished I’d never been born — as much as I love my parents, it’s just so sad not knowing who I am and where I came from.’

Gracie — the first British child of an egg and sperm donor to speak publicly about the complications such a start in life can cause — is eager to spread the word about the challenges facing donor-conceived children, but finds the subject so painful that she breaks down in tears several times during our interview.​

Ok, what does rape have to do with this?

 

[ShackledNation]

Not if they're human rights violators. If they adopt a child, then yes. If they enter their marriage with a child from a failed normal marriage, then yes. But purposely creating a child in order to deprive the child of its human rights, no, that cannot be encouraged.

Sorry...already done that...and our daughter is a beautiful child grown to an adult.

If a woman took thalidomide and her baby wasn't affected with malformed limbs or other birth defects, then I'd be happy for her and her child, but her decision to take the drug knowing the risk it imposed on her child is not something that should be affirmed. You violated your child's human rights. Luckily for you she doesn't see that as a big deal.

I just showed that to her...she was walking by on her way to work. She laughed. And said I sure run into a lot of idiots when I'm posting.

Next time your daughter passes by ask her how she feels about rape victims dealing with their ordeal and ask her if she thinks they should all deal with their trauma as Elizabeth Smart has dealt with her ordeal, because you know, well we all know, that everyone deals with trauma in the same way. Like this girl:

‘Knowing that the two people I love most don’t look like me and that I am not biologically related to them has been really tough.

‘There are times I’ve wished I’d never been born — as much as I love my parents, it’s just so sad not knowing who I am and where I came from.’

Gracie — the first British child of an egg and sperm donor to speak publicly about the complications such a start in life can cause — is eager to spread the word about the challenges facing donor-conceived children, but finds the subject so painful that she breaks down in tears several times during our interview.​

Ok, what does rape have to do with this?

Nothing, of course. Why else would Rikurzhen bring it up?

 

[elektra]

The meaning of words change. 100 years ago, marriage meant something entirely different than what it means today. Women were treated as property, for example. If you want to live in a bubble where nothing ever changes, too bad. Such a place does not exist.

Meanwhile, there is no rational basis to deny same-sex couples marriage license. Denying same-sex couples marriage licenses create demonstrable harms, but not a single demonstrable benefit.

Woman were treated like slaves?, another lie.

Strawman. I didn't say women were treated like slaves. Is lying all you can do?

meaning of words change, slaves were property, you stated women were property, run backwards all you want but now you can see the importance in the meaning of words.

Woman, as you stated, we're "property", people who were property were called Slaves.

1914, according ShakledNation were bought and sold, like property, slaves.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Not if they're human rights violators. If they adopt a child, then yes. If they enter their marriage with a child from a failed normal marriage, then yes. But purposely creating a child in order to deprive the child of its human rights, no, that cannot be encouraged.

Sorry...already done that...and our daughter is a beautiful child grown to an adult.

If a woman took thalidomide and her baby wasn't affected with malformed limbs or other birth defects, then I'd be happy for her and her child, but her decision to take the drug knowing the risk it imposed on her child is not something that should be affirmed. You violated your child's human rights. Luckily for you she doesn't see that as a big deal.

I just showed that to her...she was walking by on her way to work. She laughed. And said I sure run into a lot of idiots when I'm posting.

Next time your daughter passes by ask her how she feels about rape victims dealing with their ordeal and ask her if she thinks they should all deal with their trauma as Elizabeth Smart has dealt with her ordeal, because you know, well we all know, that everyone deals with trauma in the same way. Like this girl:

‘Knowing that the two people I love most don’t look like me and that I am not biologically related to them has been really tough.

‘There are times I’ve wished I’d never been born — as much as I love my parents, it’s just so sad not knowing who I am and where I came from.’

Gracie — the first British child of an egg and sperm donor to speak publicly about the complications such a start in life can cause — is eager to spread the word about the challenges facing donor-conceived children, but finds the subject so painful that she breaks down in tears several times during our interview.​

Ok, what does rape have to do with this?

A woman is violated. Some get on with their lives after dealing with the aftermath and others are forever after haunted and burdened. Not every woman deals with rape in the same way. Not every child of adoption or of IVF-donated gamete reproduction deals with the violation of their identity in the same way. Your daughter was lucky that she's OK with what you did. What though if she wasn't? There's the rub, that's the Russian Roulette in play, you have no way of knowing beforehand how stealing your daughter's identity from here would affect her. This is why Europe prevents parents bargaining away the human rights of their children. Those human rights don't belong to the parent. A parent's DESIRE to have a baby should not be purchased at the expense of the child's HUMAN RIGHTS.

 

[Pop23]

Don't forget, that only opposite sex couples must endure the expense and health risks of birth control.

False. Many women take birth-control to control their period. That includes lesbian couples.

False, controlling periods is not birth control. Know many women getting vasectomies to control their periods.

 

[Pop23]

Yes Pop, we have sex, we have relationships and we have children. We also have legal civil marriage in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Our inability to procreate with each other, is not a consideration in whether or not we achieve marriage equality. Your strawman is irrelevant and your analogy way off. It is more like you wish to deny me a license because my car runs on something other than gasoline.

It may not be a consideration for you, but it is a consideration for the voters and for rational people. The is no rational basis to extend marriage to gay couples. None.

You have a faulty understanding of Constitutional Law. Laws must pass the rational basis standard, meaning there must be a rational basis for the law. Thus, laws banning same-sex marriage must have a rational basis for their existence. You have completely flipped the burden of proof from the government (defendents) to the plaintiffs. That is simply wrong.

There is no rational basis to discriminate against same-sex couples and deny them the right to marry. Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

Spare me the "rational basis" crap. There are literally millions of laws on the books. Are you telling me they have all had the "rational basis" rule applied to them? Furthermore, there is a rational basis for excluding gays from marriage: they can't reproduce.

End of discussion.

If the law has been challenged in court, then yes, the rational basis test applies - or a higher standard of review. That's how it works. Is this news to you? Wow.

If the rational basis reason for excluding gays is "they can't reproduce" then infertile heterosexual couples would be excluded as well. They aren't, thus that argument holds no water.

Good lord, reproductive disabilities are no different than any other disabilities.

 

[ShackledNation]

The meaning of words change. 100 years ago, marriage meant something entirely different than what it means today. Women were treated as property, for example. If you want to live in a bubble where nothing ever changes, too bad. Such a place does not exist.

Meanwhile, there is no rational basis to deny same-sex couples marriage license. Denying same-sex couples marriage licenses create demonstrable harms, but not a single demonstrable benefit.

Woman were treated like slaves?, another lie.

Strawman. I didn't say women were treated like slaves. Is lying all you can do?

meaning of words change, slaves were property, you stated women were property, run backwards all you want but now you can see the importance in the meaning of words.

Woman, as you stated, we're "property", people who were property were called Slaves.

1914, according ShakledNation were bought and sold, like property, slaves.

That's an equivocation. Not all property is treated the same. Someone can be treated like property but not be treated like a slave. Furthermore, I did not say women were property, I said they were treated like property.

You deny that women were treated like property? Really? Is your historical knowledge that shallow?

 

[Pop23]

I apologize for not being clear. What I wrote was about how laws SHOULD be. Those economic benefits to marriage should not exist for couples without kids, for after all, marriage is about love. Society doesn't benefit when you love your spouse. Society benefits when you sacrifice and raise kids.

And gays, who can and do have children, get the goodies too, right?

Not if they're human rights violators. If they adopt a child, then yes. If they enter their marriage with a child from a failed normal marriage, then yes. But purposely creating a child in order to deprive the child of its human rights, no, that cannot be encouraged.

Sorry...already done that...and our daughter is a beautiful child grown to an adult.

If a woman took thalidomide and her baby wasn't affected with malformed limbs or other birth defects, then I'd be happy for her and her child, but her decision to take the drug knowing the risk it imposed on her child is not something that should be affirmed. You violated your child's human rights. Luckily for you she doesn't see that as a big deal.

I just showed that to her...she was walking by on her way to work. She laughed. And said I sure run into a lot of idiots when I'm posting.

You keep forgetting to finish your sentences. Let me help

.......and when looking in the mirror.

 

[elektra]

Gays are not excluded by law, they are excluded by their specific choice.

Excluded is the choice if children, silent victims.

So a legal choice excludes one from equal protection under the law? Where is that written?

Protected from wh

Gays are not excluded by law, they are excluded by their specific choice.

Excluded is the choice if children, silent victims.

So a legal choice excludes one from equal protection under the law? Where is that written?

What is this legal choice that children make and where is the children's equal protection under the law.