Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[Silhouette]

Well since 10s of thousands is so tiny compared to 100s of millions of children who would be adversely affected as the core of society(marriage) itself shifted our mores so radically as to institutionalize fatherless sons and motherless daughters, your argument is one of numbers.

But how would denying gay marriage keep gays and lesbians from having kids?

How would denying polygamy marriage keep polygamists from having kids? How would denying incest marriage keep brothers and sisters from having kids? The fact is that qualifiers for marriage keeping it man/woman are done precisely to discourage these type of parenting situations for the benefit of all children collectively over time.

Are you suggesting we have a free-for-all in marriage? Surely you're not. And the Justices questioned your lawers about this extensively, didn't they? Do you suppose they were just passing time with idle chat or that they had legitimate concerns about "anything goes" "marriage" harming society as a whole?

If your argument is "people who can have or do have children should be allowed to give those children the benefits of marriage", then you have to be inclusive to all children of all arrangements, not just your pet project. Right? Or do you hate children of polygamists or incest? For that matter, using your logic, single parents should also get their children the perks and benefits of marriage. Or do you hate the children of single parents which vastly outnumber the children of gays?

...listen to me..."children of gays". There is no such physical possibility is there? There is always a sire and a dam of a child. States want those two people above all others to be present in the child's life for its best benefit.. If not, they want the closest facsimile possible to provide each child a male and female role model to best prepare them for life in a society where they can find their place in it and feel like they actually belong to a functioning adult society; instead of feeling like their gender is disposable and doesn't matter..(the implied daily message to 50% of the children caught up in gay parenting..)

 

[Skylar]

How would denying polygamy marriage keep polygamists from having kids? How would denying incest marriage keep brothers and sisters from having kids? The fact is that qualifiers for marriage keeping it man/woman are done precisely to discourage these type of parenting situations for the benefit of all children collectively over time.

You didn't actually answer my question.

Gays and lesbians are still having kids. Denying them marriage doesn't help the children they have. It doesn't help the children they will have.

Your proposal only hurts kids.

If your argument is "people who can have or do have children should be allowed to give those children the benefits of marriage", then you have to be inclusive to all children of all arrangements, not just your pet project. Right? Or do you hate children of polygamists or incest? For that matter, using your logic, single parents should also get their children the perks and benefits of marriage. Or do you hate the children of single parents which vastly outnumber the children of gays?

My argument is simple; denying gay marriage doesn't help any child. And it hurts tens of thousands.

If kids were your priority, your proposal is abysmal. As it does nothing but hurt children.

...listen to me..."children of gays". There is no such physical possibility is there? There is always a sire and a dam of a child.

Clearly you've never heard of artificial insemination, adoption or surrogacy. You never question that these are the children of the parents who raised them if the parents are straight. Its only when the parents are gay that you deny it.

By any rational standard, these are the children of the parents who raised them in both instances. Sexual orientation changes not a thing.

 

[jwoodie]

Clearly you've never heard of artificial insemination, adoption or surrogacy. You never question that these are the children of the parents who raised them if the parents are straight. Its only when the parents are gay that you deny it.

By any rational standard, these are the children of the parents who raised them in both instances. Sexual orientation changes not a thing.

Clearly, you don't understand the value of biological parents. By any objective measurement, children with married biological parents are better off. The problem with gay marriage, like no-fault divorce, is that it further dilutes the "sanctity" of marriage and turns it into little more than a theatrical production. That is why fewer and fewer people are getting married before having children.

 

[Silhouette]

How would denying polygamy marriage keep polygamists from having kids? How would denying incest marriage keep brothers and sisters from having kids? The fact is that qualifiers for marriage keeping it man/woman are done precisely to discourage these type of parenting situations for the benefit of all children collectively over time.

You didn't actually answer my question.

Gays and lesbians are still having kids. Denying them marriage doesn't help the children they have. It doesn't help the children they will have.

Your proposal only hurts kids.

Which kids? Your kids? Or the 100s of millions of kids wanting a stable and best formative environment over time? We aren't going to make everyone walk around with blindfolds on and using canes just because some tiny population is unfortunately blind. We aren't going to change the fundamental meaning of the word "marriage" to the real and measurable detriment to 100s of millions of children into the untold future, just because some unfortunate kids have gotten caught up in adults lives who want to try to copulate with members of their same gender.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, I said I would come back now and again. So I might as well hang in until June sporadically. Let's see how vigorously the *usual crowd* will spam good points into oblivion, trying to silence the conversation..

We have a couple of questions. 1. The "should the fed mandate gay marriage and silence any opposition" question and 2. The "should the fed allow some people/businesses to refuse to participate in "gay marriages" question. I sort of walk back and forth between the two questions and have a bit more of a discussion about the invisible demographic in all these conversations: children and their spongy, socially-learning minds. It weighs heavily on the future of society as we sit poised, deliberating at such a divergent fork in the social fabric...

What if a community in Iowa where pigs are raised a great deal, decided to pass a local law that said all citizens who aren't allergic to pork, must eat pork at least once a week to show their civic devotion to their mainstay and town's name? Just for instance, hypothetically.
A jew who refused to abide by that law would be in his rights. Would he not?

Denying participation in gay marriage isn't a statement about a race. It's a statement about BEHAVIORS. "I don't want to eat pork" ...where "to eat" is a verb, not a noun. "I don't want to support people who identify with a lifestyle where they have sex with the same gender".....where "they have sex with the same gender" is an action, a verb, not a noun. In contrast African Americans or First Nation People are not verbs. They are nouns. Please learn the legal difference.

The equivalent is if bulimics got together and organized to force restaurant owners to place vomit urns on every table, because to not do so was "hurtful and discriminatory to bulimic Americans!". Bulimia, like homosexuality, is a stubborn habitual behavior that once learned is very difficult to change. And youngsters often pass on the bad habit socially by teaching/learning/observation of peer behaviors.

Gays claim homosexuality is innate, intrinsic. They have not demonstrated this. And in fact a vast source of knowledge from some of the most credible institutions suggests that homosexuality is learned, and worse considering this particular question of law, may actually be passed on socially:

The little ole' Mayo Clinic, 2007:

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child. This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”or “abused-abusers phenomena.”5,23,24,46......
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor, in which the abused child is trying to gain a new identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

And...the shabby source called "The CDC"..

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta... Drug Use among Gay Men Pervasive by Worcester Sharon - Clinical Psychiatry News Vol. 33 Issue 2 February 2005 Online Research Library Questia

LGBT professional bloggers/spammers would say instead we must listen to the latest lavendar "CQR" "excellence" being pumped out of the rainbow-propaganda machine, erstwhile known as "The American Psychological Association", right?

Legal discussion:

Since objecting to participate in supporting so-called "gay marriage" isn't an affront to life or limb of the the "victims" of such a "crime", then there's the gold standard of law when it comes to rightful and lawful discrimination against BEHAVIORS (verb) but not race (noun). Hurting people's feelings by practicing free speech and freedom of religion is not against the law. It may hurt homosexuals' feelings to be reminded that their behaviors aren't universally and blindly accepted/acceptable and promoted, but that isn't a crime.

I'll just end this here by saying that children are watching what we approve of and what we don't, and making decisions in their own learning/habituating experiences based on what is modeled before them.

Bigotry in the name of religion.

Bigotry in the name of recognition....

I love how those who bash Christianity as bigoted are being bigoted against Christians.

Hey! Lead by example!

 

[Syriusly]

Clearly you've never heard of artificial insemination, adoption or surrogacy. You never question that these are the children of the parents who raised them if the parents are straight. Its only when the parents are gay that you deny it.

By any rational standard, these are the children of the parents who raised them in both instances. Sexual orientation changes not a thing.

Clearly, you don't understand the value of biological parents. By any objective measurement, children with married biological parents are better off. The problem with gay marriage, like no-fault divorce, is that it further dilutes the "sanctity" of marriage and turns it into little more than a theatrical production. That is why fewer and fewer people are getting married before having children.

Clearly you don't value any parents who don't fit your model. Most children of gay parents are the biological child of one of the couple- just as the child of any straight parents whose father or mother is infertile.

By your rational- the children born of artificial insemination are getting inferior parenting- which is interesting because any parents using artificial insemination are actually choosing to have a child, while biological parents often have their children by accident.

Denying homosexuals marriage achieves only one thing- it ensures that their children will not have married parents- which is a great example to those children of the 'sanctity' of marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

How would denying polygamy marriage keep polygamists from having kids? How would denying incest marriage keep brothers and sisters from having kids? The fact is that qualifiers for marriage keeping it man/woman are done precisely to discourage these type of parenting situations for the benefit of all children collectively over time.

You didn't actually answer my question.

Gays and lesbians are still having kids. Denying them marriage doesn't help the children they have. It doesn't help the children they will have.

Your proposal only hurts kids.

Which kids? r.

The children mentioned by Justice Kennedy- the children of gay parents.

Same Gender marriage has no effect on any other children than those children.

 

[Syriusly]

...listen to me..."children of gays". There is no such physical possibility is there? There is always a sire and a dam of a child. .)

Tell that to Justice Kennedy

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...listen to me..."children of gays". There is no such physical possibility is there? There is always a sire and a dam of a child. .)

Tell that to Justice Kennedy

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

The children do not matter either way. Marriage in the U.S. Is not about children, kiddos.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This debate is missing the forest for the trees. The most important social problem facing our country is the decline of marriage in favor of having children out of wedlock. The question is whether gay marriage will serve to reverse or add to this decline. For the small minority of gay couples, the answer is obvious. But for the large majority of the population, corrupting the traditional definition of marriage will further undermine its status as a respected institution.

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and has no bearing whatsoever on the issues before the Court.

The traditional definition of marriage is two consenting adult partners not related to each other entering into a committed relationship recognized by the state; same-sex couples are clearly eligible to marry.

Indeed, same-sex couples wish to marry because they believe in the institution of marriage, and wish to contribute to its success, rendering the notion that allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law will somehow 'harm' marriage baseless.

And as already correctly noted, the ability to have children is not a 'prerequisite' to indeed marry, as infertile opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry, and older opposite-sex couples no longer capable of having children are not compelled to divorce.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Clearly you've never heard of artificial insemination, adoption or surrogacy. You never question that these are the children of the parents who raised them if the parents are straight. Its only when the parents are gay that you deny it.

By any rational standard, these are the children of the parents who raised them in both instances. Sexual orientation changes not a thing.

Clearly, you don't understand the value of biological parents. By any objective measurement, children with married biological parents are better off. The problem with gay marriage, like no-fault divorce, is that it further dilutes the "sanctity" of marriage and turns it into little more than a theatrical production. That is why fewer and fewer people are getting married before having children.

Clearly, you don't understand the law.

In order for the state to deny citizens their civil rights – in this case the right to due process and equal protection of the law – the government must demonstrate a rational basis for doing so, objective, documented evidence in support of denying citizens their rights, pursuant to a proper legislative end.

Denying same-sex couples access to marriage law because people don't like gay Americans is not 'rational'; there is no compelling governmental interest in denying same-sex couples their right to access marriage law.

There is no objective, documented evidence is support of denying gay Americans their 14th Amendment rights; time and again those in support of prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying have failed to demonstrate how allowing same-sex couples to marry 'harms' society, or that it somehow 'benefits' society to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying.

And because measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their right to access marriage law are devoid of a rational basis and lack objective, documented evidence in support, such prohibitions pursue no proper legislative end, their intent is solely to harm and disadvantage gay Americans. “This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” Romer v. Evans.

 

[Skylar]

Clearly you've never heard of artificial insemination, adoption or surrogacy. You never question that these are the children of the parents who raised them if the parents are straight. Its only when the parents are gay that you deny it.

By any rational standard, these are the children of the parents who raised them in both instances. Sexual orientation changes not a thing.

Clearly, you don't understand the value of biological parents. By any objective measurement, children with married biological parents are better off. The problem with gay marriage, like no-fault divorce, is that it further dilutes the "sanctity" of marriage and turns it into little more than a theatrical production. That is why fewer and fewer people are getting married before having children.

The evidence shows that children with married parents are better off. There doesn't seem to be any particular difference to outcomes if the children are adopted as babies, the product of IVF, or born through surrogacy. Which is exactly my point. Recognizing that children with married parents are better off, denying the children of same sex parents these benefits 'in the name of children' is an obtuse contradiction. As you'd literally be arguing (as Sil does) that we must hurt children for the sake of children.

And here's the kicker: denying same sex marriage doesn't help any child. Not one.

So denying same sex marriage hurts tens of thousands of kids. And helps none of them. Making any 'for the children' argument not only spectacularly fallacious. But one that produces the exact opposite of the proposed results. Making the proposal worse than useless.

And that's before we take into account all the harms done to the gay or lesbian couple themselves in terms of lost rights. Which itself is more than ample justification for overturning gay marriage bans.

 

[Silhouette]

Clearly, you don't understand the law.

In order for the state to deny citizens their civil rights – in this case the right to due process and equal protection of the law – the government must demonstrate a rational basis for doing so...

The rational basis is 1. Marriage is a privelege, like driving, with certain qualifiers (like not being blind, for driving) and 2. Gay marriage would incentivize the wrong structure for the most important people in marriage: children. I'll bet even you C Clayton, had the benefit of a mother and father influence in your life. Yet you would seek to rework an institution to legitimize depriving other children of that vital need.

So the state DOES have a rational basis: children. Otherwise, if not for their interest, marriage is a money loss for states. Where's their incentive to even have marriage if not to prod their citizens to make the best formative environment for kids/future citizens? If they entice a lesser environment, known to harm children (boys without a father model, girls without a mother model), then the state loses money when those kids become troubled citizens (crime, prisons, indigency, drug addiction, mental illness). The state assumes, rightly so from thousand of years of reliable repetition, that children will arrive to any marriage. If not naturally, then fostered, adopted, grandparented.. So a state sets the standards for marriage for them. There's your rational basis.

Marriage that excludes gays, polygamists and incest does so as a standard, a bar, not a 'ban'. So when you hear people say "this state banned gay marriage" that is wholly incorrect. The states merely affirmed precise legal language on which citizens may enjoy the privelege for the sake of children. Anyone can shack up together, but only certain people can get financial perks of marriage. The state has excellent reasons for this. The best of all as it turns out: children.

Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Skylar]

Clearly, you don't understand the law.

In order for the state to deny citizens their civil rights – in this case the right to due process and equal protection of the law – the government must demonstrate a rational basis for doing so...

The rational basis is 1. Marriage is a privelege, like driving, with certain qualifiers (like not being blind, for driving) and 2. Gay marriage would incentivize the wrong structure for the most important people in marriage: children. I'll bet even you C Clayton, had the benefit of a mother and father influence in your life. Yet you would seek to rework an institution to legitimize depriving other children of that vital need.

Marriage is a fundamental civil right. as the USSC has found. As this is a legal question, the only logical basis of discussion is through the lens of legal precedent and legal findings. Since marriage is a right by both the standards of logic and the law, your entire argument is invalid and irrelevant.

So the state DOES have a rational basis: children.

Yet no couple in any state is denied access to marriage if they have no children nor can have no children. The standard of exclusion you insist we apply to gays doesn't exist. Instead, you propose we invent a standard that doesn't exist, apply it to gays, then exclude all straights.

That's an obvious 14th amendment violation. And it is the 14th amendment that gay marriage bans are being held against in the Obergefell case. Your basis of reasoning would produce an undeniable 14th amendment violation and invalidate all gay marriage bans. \

If you wish to exclude couples that cannot have children from marriage, then you must apply it to straights too. A woman with a hysterectomy has no more a chance of having a child than a gay man. And if the capacity to have children is the basis of eligibility for marriage, eligibility would last only as long as the capacity to have children did. Meaning that the marriages of most older folks would be invalidated. Usually at menopause.

We won't implement such a standard as marriage serves many purposes. Not just the one that you will acknowledge. And there exists at least one valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Again invalidating your claims.

Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This study doesn't support any of your claims. It doesn't mention a thing about gays, gay parenting, nor does it measure the effects of any kind of parenting. Nor does it find that a same sex role model must be a parent.

You assume all of these things, based on nothing. And your baseless assumptions have no value to any rational discussion of these issues.

 

[Silhouette]

OK, so let's say there's a dispute here in closing arguments. We have the people who think like I do (and the reams of studies that back me up) that children's best environment in marriage includes a mother and father. Then we have the opposing view that either children aren't dominant to adults in this conversation or that "gay marriage doesn't hurt children".

OK, so there's a dispute.

Here's the US Supreme Courts rationale: this experimental type of marriage is too new to shut down the converstaion of the governed by just 9 people in DC. They will cite children on this point. And indeed, most of the proponents of gay marriage had a mother and father in their life. So the Court will say the conversation must go on. In other words and simply put, the burden is not upon states and their society to prove why gays cannot get married and be the quintessential examples of parents to the states' vital interest (children/its future citizens). The burden will be upon gays to convince each state that motherless daughters and fatherless sons are in the state's best interest.

And this means they're simply going to reaffirm Windsor IMHO.

 

[Skylar]

OK, so let's say there's a dispute here in closing arguments.

These aren't 'closing arguments' Sil. You've already said you were leaving the board due to stress and impacts on your health. Yet here you are, posting multiple times a day. You're obsessed with the topic. And you're sacrificing your emotional and physical health to feed that obsession.

You literally oppose gays more than you advocate your own health. That's not well. And its certainly not an 'argument'.

We have the people who think like I do (and the reams of studies that back me up) that children's best environment in marriage includes a mother and father.

Sil, there are study after study that demonstrates that the children of same sex parents are fine. You simply ignore them all. Regardless of sample size, origin, methodology, anytying....you ignore every single study that doens't feed your anti-gay obsession. Worse, you've made up findings that simply don't exist in the studies you cite.

You said most gays were sexually molested as children and cited a 2007 mayo clinic study that never said that most gays were sexually molested.

You said same sex parenting produces bad outcomes for children and cited a 2011 Prince Trust study that never even mentions gays, same sex parenting, or measures the effect of any kind of parenting.

In both cases you literally made up findings to match your anti-gay obsession. All while ignoring overwhelming evidence from study after study that the children of same sex parents are find. Please don't insult our intelligence or your own by pretending that evidence has a thing to do with your positioun.

Then we have the opposing view that either children aren't dominant to adults in this conversation or that "gay marriage doesn't hurt children".

OK, so there's a dispute.

Not really, Sil. As there's no disagreement on these two points:

1) Denying gay marriage hurts 10s of thousands of children of same sex parents
2) Denying gay marriage benfits no child.

You can't show us any benefit to any child in denying gay marriage. OAnd the courts have already demonstrated all the harms and humiliations that denying gay marriage causes.

Your proposal only hurts children. And it benefits none of them. And you don't even disagree with this assessment.

Here's the US Supreme Courts rationale: this experimental type of marriage is too new to shut down the converstaion of the governed by just 9 people in DC. They will cite children on this point. And indeed, most of the proponents of gay marriage had a mother and father in their life. So the Court will say the conversation must go on. And this means they're simply going to reaffirm Windsor IMHO.

Windsor found that the States are subject to constitutional guarantees. With Scalia in his dissent from Windsor concluding it was 'beyond mistaking' that court made its position against gay marriage clear in the Windsor decision. And that it was 'inevitable' that the court would apply the logic of the Windsor decision to state gay marriage laws.

But you know more than Scalia? You don't, Sil. You're clinging to what you want to be true. Not what the evidence suggests will be.

 

[Silhouette]

Remember Skylar, you are talking to the Court here, not usual ad hominems at me to cover holes in your argument. These are 9 people, most of whom are staying objective on this question (with 2 exceptions) as arguments play out and deliberation happens. Convince these 7 people why the conversation on "should states be forced to incentivize motherless daughters and fatherless sons as married" should be immediately shut down, when you yourself had the benefit of a mother and father in your life.

Leave me out of it. I'm all grown up and set in my ways. This is about the little plastic ones in our midst.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws in favor of political passions of the moment that involve ideology.

 

[Skylar]

Remember Skylar, you are talking to the Court here, not usual ad hominems at me to cover holes in your argument.

Alas, no. I've destroyed your argument logically, rationally, and legally. And you know it. Let me demonstrate the points you won't discuss that obliterate your argument:

1) You won't discuss the 14th amendment violations of excluding only gays from marriage for being unable to have children, but allowing any infertile straight couple to marry. Either the same standard applies to both or neither. And our law is clear: its neither. As no couple

Destroying your argument.

2) You won't discuss how denying gay marriage hurts 10s of thousands of children and benefits no child. You don't even disagree. And his axiomatic pair of facts destroys any claim that your argument is 'for children'. Your proposal does nothing but hurt children.

Destroying your argument.

3) You won't discuss the littany of studies that contradict you, affirming that the children of same sex parents are fine. Large scale studies, small scale studies, longitudinal studies, studies done in the US, studies done abroad, they all contradict you.

Destroying your argument.

4) You won't discuss the fact that marriage is a fundamental civil right, instead insisting its 'only a priveledge'. The SCOTUS contradicts you repeatedly. The legality of gay marriage is a legal question. Logically, the standards of legal precedent and legal findings are the lens through which this debate should be had.

And through that lens, marriage is a right.

Destroying your argument.

5) You won't discuss the fact that the Windsor decision explicitly places state marriage laws as subordinate to constitutional guarantees. And cites as precedent a case where state marriage laws were overturned when they violated individual rights. Nor will you discuss Scalia's dissent on Windsor where he found that the court's position against gay marriage was 'beyond mistaking', and their application of windsor against state gay marriage bans was 'inevitable'.

Destroying your argument.

I can go on and on with factual errors in your argument, misrpresentations of the evidence, or calculated omissions (like every study that contradicts you) that demonstrate the absurdity of your claims.

Your argument just doesn't work. Which is why you ignore every hole in your reasoning, every legal contradiction, every study that contradicts you, every constitutional violation.

Feel free. The court won't.

 

[Silhouette]

Skylar, direct your 'destruction' comments to SCOTUS. They're the ones you're talking to here, remember?