US Supreme Court to Meet This Week To Decide To Take Up Gay Marriage Debate/Case

[dblack]

The main thing is, we need a centralized, coercive authority in charge of our personal lives.

No, see, that's just the thing. Th e state isn't interested in policing marriage; only incentivizing it. The state loses money on marriage so it darned well better be getting something in return. Historically, as well as now, the state gets the best formative envrironment for kids by setting the standard structure for marriage as "man/woman".

This is the worst kind of government. The state has no business "incentivizing" personal behavior in this way, regardless of the "returns".

 

[Silhouette]

No, see, that's just the thing. The state isn't interested in policing marriage; only incentivizing it. The state loses money on marriage so it darned well better be getting something in return. Historically, as well as now, the state gets the best formative envrironment for kids by setting the standard structure for marriage as "man/woman".

This is the worst kind of government. The state has no business "incentivizing" personal behavior in this way, regardless of the "returns".

Yeah, they do. And that business is a federal mandate to protect children. But, balancing freedom vs that protection, the state chooses instead of policing that protection, to entice it into existence. I think it's a good compromise.

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, they do. And that business is a federal mandate to protect children.

You don't protect children by harming them, Silo. And the harm caused to the children of same sex couples when their parents can't marry is recognized by the courts as significant and quite real:

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.

DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

Windsor v. US

You may choose to pretend this harm doesn't exist. But Kennedy, the man who wrote the Windsor decision, won't.

 

[Montrovant]

The main thing is, we need a centralized, coercive authority in charge of our personal lives.

No, see, that's just the thing. Th e state isn't interested in policing marriage; only incentivizing it. The state loses money on marriage so it darned well better be getting something in return. Historically, as well as now, the state gets the best formative envrironment for kids by setting the standard structure for marriage as "man/woman".

This is the worst kind of government. The state has no business "incentivizing" personal behavior in this way, regardless of the "returns".

Would you agree, though, that the reality of the situation is that marriage will remain the business of government for the foreseeable future?

 

[Silhouette]

You don't protect children by harming them, Silo. And the harm caused to the children of same sex couples when their parents can't marry is recognized by the courts as significant and quite real...

Well I guess the Court is kind of at an impasse then. Because the harm done to kids as found by the Prince's Trust study, by not having their same gender as a parent, is also significant and quite real.

Those two issues will have to be weighed in the balance.

 

[Montrovant]

You don't protect children by harming them, Silo. And the harm caused to the children of same sex couples when their parents can't marry is recognized by the courts as significant and quite real...

Well I guess the Court is kind of at an impasse then. Because the harm done to kids as found by the Prince's Trust study, by not having their same gender as a parent, is also significant and quite real.

Those two issues will have to be weighed in the balance.

Again I ask you : if the damage caused by not having a same gender parent (which isn't actually what the Youth Index says, but let's go with it anyway) is so significant, why does the study stop asking about it in later versions?

 

[Syriusly]

You don't protect children by harming them, Silo. And the harm caused to the children of same sex couples when their parents can't marry is recognized by the courts as significant and quite real...

Well I guess the Court is kind of at an impasse then. Because the harm done to kids as found by the Prince's Trust study, by not having their same gender as a parent, is also significant and quite real.

Those two issues will have to be weighed in the balance.

The court will not even hear about the Prince's Trust Study- nor will anyone but you raise that issue.

Because you are delusional.

 

[Skylar]

You don't protect children by harming them, Silo. And the harm caused to the children of same sex couples when their parents can't marry is recognized by the courts as significant and quite real...

Well I guess the Court is kind of at an impasse then.

Not the court. Just you.

Because the harm done to kids as found by the Prince's Trust study, by not having their same gender as a parent, is also significant and quite real.

The Prince study never found that not having same gender as a parent causes any harm to a child.

If you believe it does, quote the Prince Trust study saying so. You'll find its just another Silhoucination.

 

[dblack]

No, see, that's just the thing. The state isn't interested in policing marriage; only incentivizing it. The state loses money on marriage so it darned well better be getting something in return. Historically, as well as now, the state gets the best formative envrironment for kids by setting the standard structure for marriage as "man/woman".

This is the worst kind of government. The state has no business "incentivizing" personal behavior in this way, regardless of the "returns".

Yeah, they do. And that business is a federal mandate to protect children. But, balancing freedom vs that protection, the state chooses instead of policing that protection, to entice it into existence. I think it's a good compromise.

I don't. We grant power to government to protect our rights, not to tell us how to live.

 

[dblack]

The main thing is, we need a centralized, coercive authority in charge of our personal lives.

No, see, that's just the thing. Th e state isn't interested in policing marriage; only incentivizing it. The state loses money on marriage so it darned well better be getting something in return. Historically, as well as now, the state gets the best formative envrironment for kids by setting the standard structure for marriage as "man/woman".

This is the worst kind of government. The state has no business "incentivizing" personal behavior in this way, regardless of the "returns".

Would you agree, though, that the reality of the situation is that marriage will remain the business of government for the foreseeable future?

I don't agree with your basic premise that government has a vested interest in people as "resources".

 

[Montrovant]

The main thing is, we need a centralized, coercive authority in charge of our personal lives.

No, see, that's just the thing. Th e state isn't interested in policing marriage; only incentivizing it. The state loses money on marriage so it darned well better be getting something in return. Historically, as well as now, the state gets the best formative envrironment for kids by setting the standard structure for marriage as "man/woman".

This is the worst kind of government. The state has no business "incentivizing" personal behavior in this way, regardless of the "returns".

Would you agree, though, that the reality of the situation is that marriage will remain the business of government for the foreseeable future?

I don't agree with your basic premise that government has a vested interest in people as "resources".

Where did I put that forward as my basic premise? Are you talking to Silhouette? I just can't imagine government getting out of marriage any time soon, nor the majority of people desiring such a thing.

 

[dblack]

The main thing is, we need a centralized, coercive authority in charge of our personal lives.

No, see, that's just the thing. Th e state isn't interested in policing marriage; only incentivizing it. The state loses money on marriage so it darned well better be getting something in return. Historically, as well as now, the state gets the best formative envrironment for kids by setting the standard structure for marriage as "man/woman".

This is the worst kind of government. The state has no business "incentivizing" personal behavior in this way, regardless of the "returns".

Would you agree, though, that the reality of the situation is that marriage will remain the business of government for the foreseeable future?

I don't agree with your basic premise that government has a vested interest in people as "resources".

Where did I put that forward as my basic premise? Are you talking to Silhouette? I just can't imagine government getting out of marriage any time soon, nor the majority of people desiring such a thing.

Ahh... yes. I had my channels crossed. Please accept my apologies.

In regards to your question, I suppose it's likely that government will continue to involve itself in our marriages and and our familial arrangements. But I don't see that as a reason to concede to it, or to facilitate it.

 

[Silhouette]

States have always had an interest in incentivizing what the Citizens of these unique lands have determined is the best formative environment for kids. Otherwise the state has no earthly reason to be involved in marriage at all.

 

[dblack]

States have always had an interest in incentivizing what the Citizens of these unique lands have determined is the best formative environment for kids. Otherwise the state has no earthly reason to be involved in marriage at all.

The "state" has in interest in intruding into our personal lives in all sorts of untoward ways. And we have an "interest" as individuals to tell them to get fucked.

 

[Silhouette]

States have always had an interest in incentivizing what the Citizens of these unique lands have determined is the best formative environment for kids. Otherwise the state has no earthly reason to be involved in marriage at all.

The "state" has in interest in intruding into our personal lives in all sorts of untoward ways. And we have an "interest" as individuals to tell them to get fucked.

Not when the interest of the most important people in marriage comes into play. You don't tell kids' wellbeing to "get fucked".

 

[dblack]

States have always had an interest in incentivizing what the Citizens of these unique lands have determined is the best formative environment for kids. Otherwise the state has no earthly reason to be involved in marriage at all.

The "state" has in interest in intruding into our personal lives in all sorts of untoward ways. And we have an "interest" as individuals to tell them to get fucked.

Not when the interest of the most important people in marriage comes into play. You don't tell kids' wellbeing to "get fucked".

I tell busybodies who want to control their neighbors to get fucked.

 

[Silhouette]

States have always had an interest in incentivizing what the Citizens of these unique lands have determined is the best formative environment for kids. Otherwise the state has no earthly reason to be involved in marriage at all.

The "state" has in interest in intruding into our personal lives in all sorts of untoward ways. And we have an "interest" as individuals to tell them to get fucked.

Not when the interest of the most important people in marriage comes into play. You don't tell kids' wellbeing to "get fucked".

I tell busybodies who want to control their neighbors to get fucked.

Well, the US Supreme Court disagrees in Windsor 2013. So good luck on pursuading the majority there to overturn Windsor's specific constitutional finding on the question of same sex marriage that states have the ultimate authority to define whether it can happen there or not.

 

[dblack]

States have always had an interest in incentivizing what the Citizens of these unique lands have determined is the best formative environment for kids. Otherwise the state has no earthly reason to be involved in marriage at all.

The "state" has in interest in intruding into our personal lives in all sorts of untoward ways. And we have an "interest" as individuals to tell them to get fucked.

Not when the interest of the most important people in marriage comes into play. You don't tell kids' wellbeing to "get fucked".

I tell busybodies who want to control their neighbors to get fucked.

Well, the US Supreme Court disagrees in Windsor 2013. So good luck on pursuading the majority there to overturn Windsor's specific constitutional finding on the question of same sex marriage that states have the ultimate authority to define whether it can happen there or not.

Thanks!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

States have always had an interest in incentivizing what the Citizens of these unique lands have determined is the best formative environment for kids. Otherwise the state has no earthly reason to be involved in marriage at all.

We are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, as one's civil rights are immune from the states' efforts to violate those rights, including the rights of gay Americans to equal protection of the law, and equal access to marriage law.

You and others hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans have failed time and again to use the 'well-being' of children to justify your hatred of same-sex couples, where there is no objective, documented evidence whatsoever that children with parents of the same-sex are at some sort of 'disadvantage.'

 

[Silhouette]

Finally, no potty mouth replies!