In Elegant Ruling, Carter Appointed Federal Judge Upholds Traditional Marriage

[Skylar]

So.....back to the claim that Syrius has so thoroughly supported with evidence:

If marriage is all about children,why then does Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry?

Anyone?

Operative words big guy

They must prove they cannot

Yeah, you didn't actually read the sentence you're referring to, did you? Let me help you with that.

If marriage is all about children,why then does Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry?

Did you catch it that time, sport? Certain couples in Wisconsin have to prove they CAN'T have kids before they are ALLOWED to marry. Which makes this portion of your post....

Not an issue with same sex

A little odd, champ. As you're proving my point. Gays and lesbians don't have to prove they can't reproduce. Why then would they be denied the right to marry? Why then would we apply to them a standard of being able to have kids to gays and lesbians.....then that requirement doesn't exist and isn't applied to anyone. Then apply it only to gays. And then exclude them from marriage because of the application of a non-existent requirement?

It makes no sense.

 

[Syriusly]

My claims have never been disproven.

Obviously they have. Here's your claim:

Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry...

Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.

And yet, you were straight up clueless, weren't you?

Wis. Stat. §
765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”).

You were wrong. And every time you deny it, I just quote you and quote the law......and you toss few more bundles of your credibility onto the bonfire of intellectual dishonesty. And get nothing in return.

Laughing....its not like we can't just read the law and see that you didn't have the slightest clue what you were talking about.

The state has an interest in fostering relationships that produce stable families with children. They therefore favor those unions that tend, note the word "tend", to produce them.
The stupid libs cannot think beyond black and white, cannot think beyond stage one. Therefore this argument is totally confusing to them because to them it means either a marriage will produce children and be state sanctioned or it wont and will not be state sanctioned. That's the black/white thinking typical of the brain dead left.

Then why is no one required to reproduce or be able to reproduce for their marriages to be valid? Why does Wisconsin and other States actually require some couples to prove they can't reproduce before their marriages are valid? And who says that gays and lesbians won't have families? Who says that marriage won't make those families more stable?

You're using a standard that doesn't exist and is applied to no one. Then applying your imaginary standard exclusively to gays and lesbians to exclude them from marriage. Can you see why 50 different federal courts haven't been terribly impressed with that reasoning?

See, you can't get out of your black/white, on/off, yes/no paradigm. That's why you'll never understand this and why you're wasting people's time with your nonsense.

You haven't been able to provide a cogent paradigm.

What you call nonsense are the arguments that have been winning in court.

 

[Syriusly]

No. The paradigm where you cannot think beyond two things. I've already proven all that.

I'm quite happy pointing out how you don't know what you're talking about regarding marriage law. It erodes your credibility when you start offering us pseudo-legal gibberish about marriage law.....citing only yourself again. Better yet, your denials of utterly obvious mistakes that you made regarding the law erode it even further. As it proves that you're quite happy to ignore the law if it doesn't say what you want. And the law clearly isn't the basis of your argument.

Ignoring the law isn't a legal argument. Its an excuse for one.

Which might explain the nearly perfect record of failure for opponents of gay marriage in federal court. Why the USSC has preserved every lower court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans. Why every circuit appellant court to rule on gay marriage bans has overturned them. Why the USSC established that gays and lesbians can be protected from discrimination under the law in the Romer V. Evans ruling. And why the USSC overturned the provisions of DOMA that defined marriage as only one man and one woman in the Windsor decision.

But they're all wrong and only you're right, huh?

Laughing....good luck with that.

blahblahblah

Most informative Rabbi post in this thread.

 

[Skylar]

Sihouette has pulled another strawman from her vast strawman field.

Yup. If a single instance of child abuse means that an entire sexual orientation can't marry.....then straights are so completely fucked.

 

[Syriusly]

So.....back to the claim that Syrius has so thoroughly supported with evidence:

If marriage is all about children,why then does Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry?

Anyone?

Operative words big guy

They must prove they cannot

Not an issue with same sex

The dynamics of the relationships are a world apart. Obviously they are no where near the same.

The more you post this drivel, the more different you prove they are.

Simple question:
2 couples in Wisconsin want to get married:
Couple #1- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- opposite gender
Couple #2- both 65 years old, first cousins and physically unable to have children together- same gender.

Couple #1 can get legally married. Couple #2 could not get legally married

Was that a) because couple #2 could not have children or b) because couple number are the same gender?

 

[Syriusly]

Gay rights will win in the end. The Rabbi's of the world notwithstanding.

It's been tried before, failed each time

Hmmmmm really?

Court decisions I believe are 50 to 2 in regards to marriage equality for gays.

That seems an odd description of 'failed each time".

And that is only on the issue of gay marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Sihouette has pulled another strawman from her vast strawman field.

Yup. If a single instance of child abuse means that an entire sexual orientation can't marry.....then straights are so completely fucked.

She has a whole armada of strawmen ready for action.

I am not sure if she realizes that they are not real or not.

 

[Silhouette]

Sihouette has pulled another strawman from her vast strawman field.

Yup. If a single instance of child abuse means that an entire sexual orientation can't marry.....then straights are so completely fucked.

Well, so far 0% of LGBT people have come out against gay pride parades in front of kids, or forcing kids to celebrate Harvey Milk the predator of teen boys on drugs.

Like I said...

The case of the two lesbians in California drugging their son with female hormones to "prepare him to be a girl if he wants" later on is the extreme example of a more subtle message of self-hatred. When you sanction with "marriage" two women or two men playing at "parents" [mom and dad] you are sending the deep and profound message to children in that situation that are the opposite gender of the "parents" that "your gender is disposable, unnecessary in a parenting situation. In a child's mind that would simply be rendered as "I am unnecessary/unwanted as my gender". That runs the gamut from just a hurtful self-esteem mind-fuck all the way up to drugging a child to wire his brain to reject his own gender by the time he [or she] is old enough to get "doctors" to help him or her chop off healthy organs to play-act the opposite [allowed, appropriate, desireable] gender.

 

[Pop23]

So.....back to the claim that Syrius has so thoroughly supported with evidence:

If marriage is all about children,why then does Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry?

Anyone?

Operative words big guy

They must prove they cannot

Yeah, you didn't actually read the sentence you're referring to, did you? Let me help you with that.

If marriage is all about children,why then does Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry?

Did you catch it that time, sport? Certain couples in Wisconsin have to prove they CAN'T have kids before they are ALLOWED to marry. Which makes this portion of your post....

Not an issue with same sex

A little odd, champ. As you're proving my point. Gays and lesbians don't have to prove they can't reproduce. Why then would they be denied the right to marry? Why then would we apply to them a standard of being able to have kids to gays and lesbians.....then that requirement doesn't exist and isn't applied to anyone. Then apply it only to gays. And then exclude them from marriage because of the application of a non-existent requirement?

It makes no sense.

If it ain't dimwit, then why is it an issue?

Geez, read what you post will ya?

 

[Pop23]

Gay rights will win in the end. The Rabbi's of the world notwithstanding.

It's been tried before, failed each time

Hmmmmm really?

Court decisions I believe are 50 to 2 in regards to marriage equality for gays.

That seems an odd description of 'failed each time".

And that is only on the issue of gay marriage.

I can find 50 enablers in a few blocks.

 

[Pop23]

So.....back to the claim that Syrius has so thoroughly supported with evidence:

If marriage is all about children,why then does Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry?

Anyone?

Operative words big guy

They must prove they cannot

Yeah, you didn't actually read the sentence you're referring to, did you? Let me help you with that.

If marriage is all about children,why then does Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry?

Did you catch it that time, sport? Certain couples in Wisconsin have to prove they CAN'T have kids before they are ALLOWED to marry. Which makes this portion of your post....

Not an issue with same sex

A little odd, champ. As you're proving my point. Gays and lesbians don't have to prove they can't reproduce. Why then would they be denied the right to marry? Why then would we apply to them a standard of being able to have kids to gays and lesbians.....then that requirement doesn't exist and isn't applied to anyone. Then apply it only to gays. And then exclude them from marriage because of the application of a non-existent requirement?

It makes no sense.

Yes, you are a little odd

One demographic group has to prove that first cousins can't

With the second demographic group.......

Yet the two are the same?

Your delusion runs deep grasshoppa

 

[Skylar]

Well, so far 0% of LGBT people have come out against gay pride parades in front of kids, or forcing kids to celebrate Harvey Milk the predator of teen boys on drugs.

Says you. You're just making up that stat from nothing pulled sideways out of your ass. And the record of accuracy for your rectal database is worse than guessing.

Second, its irrelevant. Your personal obsession with Harvey Milk has no bearing on anyone's right to marry or adopt.

The case of the two lesbians in California drugging their son with female hormones to "prepare him to be a girl if he wants" later on is the extreme example of a more subtle message of self-hatred.

If one case of child abuse negates an entire sexual orientation's right to marry, then straights are completely fucked. You really don't think your arguments through.

Worse, you're applying the pseudo-legal gibberish concept of 'collective guilt', where every gay person is responsible for the actions of any gay person. Um, that's actually a thing. If you're going to deny a gay person's right to marry based on their abuse of a child, then it has to be THEIR abuse. Not some lesbian couple in California. Collective guilt is not a legal principle. And one gay person's actions have no bearing on the rights and liberty of another.

When you sanction with "marriage" two women or two men playing at "parents" [mom and dad] you are sending the deep and profound message to children in that situation that are the opposite gender of the "parents" that "your gender is disposable, unnecessary in a parenting situation. In a child's mind that would simply be rendered as "I am unnecessary/unwanted as my gender". That runs the gamut from just a hurtful self-esteem mind-fuck all the way up to drugging a child to wire his brain to reject his own gender by the time he [or she] is old enough to get "doctors" to help him or her chop off healthy organs to play-act the opposite [allowed, appropriate, desireable] gender.

Says you. And you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. You're claiming to speak for EVERY child now.....because you say you do. And offering us elaborate pseudo-psychological diagnosis of people you've never met. Something no credible psychologist would ever do. Worse, you're a farm hand. If I want to know how to sheer a sheep, I'll call you. But you know jack shit about child psychology. Making your 'professional diagnosis' of children you've never met meaningless gibber jabber.

Worse still, it has nothing to do with a gay or lesbians right to marry. Ending your argument yet again.

 

[Silhouette]

Well, so far 0% of LGBT people have come out against gay pride parades in front of kids, or forcing kids to celebrate Harvey Milk the predator of teen boys on drugs.

Says you. You're just making up that stat from nothing pulled sideways out of your ass. And the record of accuracy for your rectal database is worse than guessing...

Well I've been waiting for you or one of your LGBT pals to post a link to an LGBT person who has come out publicly against the parades or Harvey Milk and so far.....BUPKISS....

 

[Skylar]

If it ain't dimwit, then why is it an issue?

Geez, read what you post will ya?

You finally read what you were replying to, did ya, sport? Then riddle me this: if marriage is all about children, then why does Wisconsin require some couples to prove the can't reproduce before they're allowed to marry? And follow along with me, chief....making careful note of the words 'can't reproduce' and 'allowed to marry'.

Obviously marriage isn't 'all about children'. No straight couple is required to have kids or be able to have kids in order to get married. Why then would we apply a standard that doesn't exist to gays....and then apply it exclusively to gays, exempting every straight couple from the same requirement?

It makes no sense. And of course is laughably unconstitutional.

One demographic group has to prove that first cousins can't

Can't what? C'mon, champ...say it with me: First cousins have to prove they can't reproduce before they're allowed to marry. At least in Wisconsin. So if marriage is all about children, why then would first cousins ever be allowed to marry when they're legally forbidden unless to do so they can prove the CAN'T have children?

Easy: marriage isn't all about kids. There are obviously other, child free, criteria under which valid marriages can be formed. Eliminating any 'but what about the kids' babble regarding gay and lesbian marriages. If straight 1st cousins don't need kids, if childless straight couples don't need kids for their marriages to be valid, if folks past menopause, if those who are sterile don't....

......then why would gays and lesbians?

There is no reason. As no one is held to that standard. Its irrelevant

 

[Skylar]

Well I've been waiting for you or one of your LGBT pals to post a link to an LGBT person who has come out publicly against the parades or Harvey Milk and so far.....BUPKISS....

Its your claim. Back it up. And you can't. You just made the stat up, pulling it right out of your ass.

And then tell us how its possibly relevant to the legal rights of gays and lesbians. Because you can't do that either.

 

[Silhouette]

You finally read what you were replying to, did ya, sport? Then riddle me this: if marriage is all about children, then why does Wisconsin require some couples to prove the can't reproduce before they're allowed to marry? And follow along with me, chief....making careful note of the words 'can't reproduce' and 'allowed to marry'.

.

I guess that's what Wisconsin wanted to do. If their voters want to change that, they can.

Meanwhile we want to hold out the ideal to children in general to see what is normal in the word "parents" [and by extension, themselves]. Some people are eligible to drive and get a driver's license. If their car breaks down, do we revoke their license? No. But blind people may never drive. Ever. Zero exceptions. It's too bad, but that's the way it is. They can cause a wreck.

The "wreck" gay "marriage" cases is when two people of the same gender send a message to a child of the opposite gender of them especally, that "your gender isn't important enough in our family as an adult role model". What the child internalizes from that is "you are not important". So that's why you get the 11 year old boy in California being drugged by his lesbians [mothers only, no male role model]. That's the extreme of that "message" sent to kids by a false ideal of marriage.

 

[Pop23]

If it ain't dimwit, then why is it an issue?

Geez, read what you post will ya?

You finally read what you were replying to, did ya, sport? Then riddle me this: if marriage is all about children, then why does Wisconsin require some couples to prove the can't reproduce before they're allowed to marry? And follow along with me, chief....making careful note of the words 'can't reproduce' and 'allowed to marry'.

Obviously marriage isn't 'all about children'. No straight couple is required to have kids or be able to have kids in order to get married. Why then would we apply a standard that doesn't exist to gays....and then apply it exclusively to gays, exempting every straight couple from the same requirement?

It makes no sense. And of course is laughably unconstitutional.

One demographic group has to prove that first cousins can't

Can't what? C'mon, champ...say it with me: First cousins have to prove they can't reproduce before they're allowed to marry. At least in Wisconsin. So if marriage is all about children, why then would first cousins ever be allowed to marry when they're legally forbidden unless to do so they can prove the CAN'T have children?

Easy: marriage isn't all about kids. There are obviously other, child free, criteria under which valid marriages can be formed. Eliminating any 'but what about the kids' babble regarding gay and lesbian marriages. If straight 1st cousins don't need kids, if childless straight couples don't need kids for their marriages to be valid, if folks past menopause, if those who are sterile don't....

......then why would gays and lesbians?

There is no reason. As no one is held to that standard. Its irrelevant to the validity of any marriage.

Gawd you b dense.

They MUST prove they can't procreate.

If it has NOTHING to do with marriage, then why must they PROVE THEY CAN'T

In you delusion you think it proves procreation had nothing to do with procreation.

That silly state grants opposite sex couples, that closely related as LONG as they cannot procreate

So procreation plays an important part in opposite sex marriage.

So, to attempt to make same sex couplings equal to opposite sex marriage you have now established that the AVERAGE same sex couple is somewhat (but barely) equal to our demographic groups:

1. Disabled
2. Elderly
3. Incestuous.

Bravo. BRILLIANT.

 

[Pop23]

Well, so far 0% of LGBT people have come out against gay pride parades in front of kids, or forcing kids to celebrate Harvey Milk the predator of teen boys on drugs.

Says you. You're just making up that stat from nothing pulled sideways out of your ass. And the record of accuracy for your rectal database is worse than guessing...

Well I've been waiting for you or one of your LGBT pals to post a link to an LGBT person who has come out publicly against the parades or Harvey Milk and so far.....BUPKISS....

One correction. They are the .......

LBGTQ-LMNOP's

 

[Skylar]

I guess that's what Wisconsin wanted to do. If their voters want to change that, they can.

Not just Wisconsin. 5 other states have similar provisions. And demonstrate, quite elegantly, that children clearly isn't the singular basis of a valid marriage. But then, so does the lack of a requirement of any straight couple to have children or be able to have children in order to get married.

The standard you've tried to apply to gays....it doesn't exist. And it applies to no one. Why then would we apply it to gays....and then only apply it to gays?

There is no reason.

e "wreck" gay "marriage" cases is when two people of the same gender send a message to a child of the opposite gender of them especally, that "your gender isn't important enough in our family as an adult role model". What the child internalizes from that is "you are not important". So that's why you get the 11 year old boy in California being drugged by his lesbians [mothers only, no male role model]. That's the extreme of that "message" sent to kids by a false ideal of marriage.

That gay marriage is a 'wreck' is just an arbitrary personal opinion of yours. It no legal validity nor is backed by anything but your ability to type it. And your baseless personal opinion doesn't limit gay's or lesbian's right to marry or adopt in any way.

Yours is a very common problem among gay marriage opponents: the issues that *actually* motivate you aren't admissible in court. You despise gay people. That's what motivates you. You've called them a cult, deviants, repugnant, insinuate they're child abuses and molesters....and now call their marriages 'wrecks'. But your personal bigotry isn't a legally valid argument. You and people like you are left with half-assed second tier arguments against gay marriage that are admissible. And unfortunately for you, easily refuted.

And thus the near perfect record of failure of gay marriage opponents in the Federal Judiciary. And gay marriage now legal in 30 of 50 states.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pop has admitted that he lied when he said gays could always marry other gays.

Pop has admitted that he lied when he said the law required people to be able to pro-create if they wanted to marry.

Pop obviously, right along with Sil, has nothing to offer in this discussion.