PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #61
You lost Sil, Just take your homophobia and go home. The faggots won, sorry.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Sutton of the 6th Circuit disagrees:You lost Sil, Just take your homophobia and go home. The faggots won, sorry.
That was before Justice Kenndy thought about how his Decision would affect future generations of children and society at its core.
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. See 26 U. S. C. §106; Treas. Reg. §1.106–1, 26 CFR §1.106–1 (2012); IRS Private Letter Ruling 9850011 (Sept. 10, 1998). And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouseand parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security. See Social Security Administration, Social Security Survivors Benefits 5 (2012) (benefits available to a surviving spouse caring for the couple’s child), online at http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf
Windsor V. US
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf
Now why would any rational person ignore Kennedy on what Kennedy believes, and instead believe you claiming to be able to read Kennedy's mind?
Now why would any rational person ignore Kennedy on what Kennedy believes, and instead believe you claiming to be able to read Kennedy's mind?
Because of two assumptions.
1. That Kennedy has a mind that is pliable and that learns still, that researches and deliberates, even at his age still.
2. That Kennedy as a Supreme Court Justice when faced with a question of law so important as replacing the core of society (marriage) with a completely different description, where marriage is the nexus of all incentivized child development (society's future), would be capable of double-checking his assumptions, divorcing himself of kneejerk emotions, and be able to make a cold, rational, wise decision that he himself may even feel misgivings about, but that is one that is ultimately the best for the stability of a society and more importantly for democracy.
THAT is how I'm able to "read Kennedy's mind".
So then if marriage isn't about children, LGBTs won't be bringing them up either I suppose?
That was before Justice Kenndy thought aboutIf LGBT's bring up children, wouldn't that indicate that children are harmed by not granting their parents a recognizable marriage.
Justice Kennedy (aka Mr. Swing Voter) certainly thought so.
Which might explain why your predictions of future outcomes are so consistently inaccurate.
Which might explain why your predictions of future outcomes are so consistently inaccurate.
Really? 6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb s Up to States Choice on Gay Marriage US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Which might explain why your predictions of future outcomes are so consistently inaccurate.
Really? 6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb s Up to States Choice on Gay Marriage US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Yes really. As Justice Kennedy isn't on the 6th circuit federal appeals court. And its his mind you imagine you can read.
We have 6 federal circuit courts in favor of gay marriage. 1 against. With the USSC preserving every single one of the 6 federal rulings in favor of gay marriage. And overturning the provisions of DOMA that don't recognize gay marriage
I think it is dangerous to try to 'read the minds' of any Supreme Court Justices- but taking into account Kennedy's statement about Prop 8 and the children- and reading his dissent- remember he did not vote with the majority in Prop 8- I think that Kennedy thought that the citizen's of California deserved to have the case heard on its merits.
I think that the majority voted to dismiss the appeal for lack of standing because that was how Roberts and Scalia could prevent the court from ruling conclusively in favor of marriage equality for homosexuals.
That is an extremely funny statement coming from the cult that assures us that not only can they read each mind of each Supreme, but that they can predict and state with finality the end vote on the ultimate gay marriage-forced-on-unwilling-states question pending this next year.
I cannot tell you how many times one of your cult's inductees has assured me that they know precisely how Kennedy will vote on the question. And how Sotomayor will vote and Kagen, and Ginsburg, even Roberts! (heard that once also that he is leaning towards forcing gay marriage on the unwilling states).
Oh, I can tell you what I think is likely, based on his past rulings. Your assessment is based on what you imagine Kennedy HASN'T considered, based on your imagination. Which is mindlessly speculative claptrap. As you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what Kennedy has or hasn't considered.
I can quote Kennedy on what he's already said. You quote yourself AS Kennedy, attributing to him positions he's never uttered, prioritizes he's never voiced, and conclusions he's never used in any argument. All that just happen to match your beliefs perfectly.
That's silly. You imagining Kennedy believes the exact opposite of what he's already stated is meaningless. And has resulted in your absymal record of prediction....which is essentially worse than guessing.
Oh, I can tell you what I think is likely, based on his past rulings. Your assessment is based on what you imagine Kennedy HASN'T considered, based on your imagination. Which is mindlessly speculative claptrap. As you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what Kennedy has or hasn't considered.
I can quote Kennedy on what he's already said. You quote yourself AS Kennedy, attributing to him positions he's never uttered, prioritizes he's never voiced, and conclusions he's never used in any argument. All that just happen to match your beliefs perfectly.
That's silly. You imagining Kennedy believes the exact opposite of what he's already stated is meaningless. And has resulted in your absymal record of prediction....which is essentially worse than guessing.
I know two things about Kennedy:
1. He is a Supreme Court Justice and as such he...
2. Should damned well better not be in the business of "believing"; and instead he should be in the business of weighing despite his beliefs...
And as it happens he is famous for being unpredictable. Which means he is probably one of the best Justices of the Nine. It's an old fashioned notion that a wise and seasoned judge should be one who rules against his own convictions when swayed by cold logic.
Enter, cold logic:
Gay marriage guarantees the lack of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent to children in that formative environment 100% of the time.
That is a cold FACT that nobody can dispute.
You promote that we should use children as guinea pigs in experimenting with gay-lifestyle "marriages". I'm saying we have enough evidence already to show us that for the untold 100s of millions of future children, having both genders as parents and preferably blood parents is in their and society's best interest.
More adults around is usually always better, as long as they get along. More money, more attention, more likely that someone will be home when the kids are. That part isn't rocket-science and has been looked into.Oh, I can tell you what I think is likely, based on his past rulings. Your assessment is based on what you imagine Kennedy HASN'T considered, based on your imagination. Which is mindlessly speculative claptrap. As you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what Kennedy has or hasn't considered.
I can quote Kennedy on what he's already said. You quote yourself AS Kennedy, attributing to him positions he's never uttered, prioritizes he's never voiced, and conclusions he's never used in any argument. All that just happen to match your beliefs perfectly.
That's silly. You imagining Kennedy believes the exact opposite of what he's already stated is meaningless. And has resulted in your absymal record of prediction....which is essentially worse than guessing.
I know two things about Kennedy:
1. He is a Supreme Court Justice and as such he...
2. Should damned well better not be in the business of "believing"; and instead he should be in the business of weighing despite his beliefs...
And as it happens he is famous for being unpredictable. Which means he is probably one of the best Justices of the Nine. It's an old fashioned notion that a wise and seasoned judge should be one who rules against his own convictions when swayed by cold logic.
Enter, cold logic:
Gay marriage guarantees the lack of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent to children in that formative environment 100% of the time.
That is a cold FACT that nobody can dispute.
You promote that we should use children as guinea pigs in experimenting with gay-lifestyle "marriages". I'm saying we have enough evidence already to show us that for the untold 100s of millions of future children, having both genders as parents and preferably blood parents is in their and society's best interest.
And of course, gay marriage is going to take children out of good, two parents of opposite gender households, right?
I could, perhaps, see your argument as having some merit if we weren't already a country filled with single parent homes and some pretty high divorce rates. What, I wonder, is the research on the difference between being raised by two same gender parents as opposed to one parent?
Oh, I can tell you what I think is likely, based on his past rulings. Your assessment is based on what you imagine Kennedy HASN'T considered, based on your imagination. Which is mindlessly speculative claptrap. As you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what Kennedy has or hasn't considered.
I can quote Kennedy on what he's already said. You quote yourself AS Kennedy, attributing to him positions he's never uttered, prioritizes he's never voiced, and conclusions he's never used in any argument. All that just happen to match your beliefs perfectly.
That's silly. You imagining Kennedy believes the exact opposite of what he's already stated is meaningless. And has resulted in your absymal record of prediction....which is essentially worse than guessing.
I know two things about Kennedy:
1. He is a Supreme Court Justice and as such he...
2. Should damned well better not be in the business of "believing"; and instead he should be in the business of weighing despite his beliefs...
And as it happens he is famous for being unpredictable. Which means he is probably one of the best Justices of the Nine. It's an old fashioned notion that a wise and seasoned judge should be one who rules against his own convictions when swayed by cold logic.
Enter, cold logic:
Gay marriage guarantees the lack of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent to children in that formative environment 100% of the time.
That is a cold FACT that nobody can dispute.
You promote that we should use children as guinea pigs in experimenting with gay-lifestyle "marriages". I'm saying we have enough evidence already to show us that for the untold 100s of millions of future children, having both genders as parents and preferably blood parents is in their and society's best interest.
And of course, gay marriage is going to take children out of good, two parents of opposite gender households, right?
I could, perhaps, see your argument as having some merit if we weren't already a country filled with single parent homes and some pretty high divorce rates. What, I wonder, is the research on the difference between being raised by two same gender parents as opposed to one parent?
More adults around is usually always better, as long as they get along. More money, more attention, more likely that someone will be home when the kids are. That part isn't rocket-science and has been looked into.Oh, I can tell you what I think is likely, based on his past rulings. Your assessment is based on what you imagine Kennedy HASN'T considered, based on your imagination. Which is mindlessly speculative claptrap. As you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what Kennedy has or hasn't considered.
I can quote Kennedy on what he's already said. You quote yourself AS Kennedy, attributing to him positions he's never uttered, prioritizes he's never voiced, and conclusions he's never used in any argument. All that just happen to match your beliefs perfectly.
That's silly. You imagining Kennedy believes the exact opposite of what he's already stated is meaningless. And has resulted in your absymal record of prediction....which is essentially worse than guessing.
I know two things about Kennedy:
1. He is a Supreme Court Justice and as such he...
2. Should damned well better not be in the business of "believing"; and instead he should be in the business of weighing despite his beliefs...
And as it happens he is famous for being unpredictable. Which means he is probably one of the best Justices of the Nine. It's an old fashioned notion that a wise and seasoned judge should be one who rules against his own convictions when swayed by cold logic.
Enter, cold logic:
Gay marriage guarantees the lack of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent to children in that formative environment 100% of the time.
That is a cold FACT that nobody can dispute.
You promote that we should use children as guinea pigs in experimenting with gay-lifestyle "marriages". I'm saying we have enough evidence already to show us that for the untold 100s of millions of future children, having both genders as parents and preferably blood parents is in their and society's best interest.
And of course, gay marriage is going to take children out of good, two parents of opposite gender households, right?
I could, perhaps, see your argument as having some merit if we weren't already a country filled with single parent homes and some pretty high divorce rates. What, I wonder, is the research on the difference between being raised by two same gender parents as opposed to one parent?
I think it is dangerous to try to 'read the minds' of any Supreme Court Justices- but taking into account Kennedy's statement about Prop 8 and the children- and reading his dissent- remember he did not vote with the majority in Prop 8- I think that Kennedy thought that the citizen's of California deserved to have the case heard on its merits.
I think that the majority voted to dismiss the appeal for lack of standing because that was how Roberts and Scalia could prevent the court from ruling conclusively in favor of marriage equality for homosexuals.
That is an extremely funny statement coming from the cult that assures us that not only can they read each mind of each Supreme, but that they can predict and state with finality the end vote on the ultimate gay marriage.
Fact:Oh, I can tell you what I think is likely, based on his past rulings. Your assessment is based on what you imagine Kennedy HASN'T considered, based on your imagination. Which is mindlessly speculative claptrap. As you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what Kennedy has or hasn't considered.
I can quote Kennedy on what he's already said. You quote yourself AS Kennedy, attributing to him positions he's never uttered, prioritizes he's never voiced, and conclusions he's never used in any argument. All that just happen to match your beliefs perfectly.
That's silly. You imagining Kennedy believes the exact opposite of what he's already stated is meaningless. And has resulted in your absymal record of prediction....which is essentially worse than guessing.
I know two things about Kennedy:
1. He is a Supreme Court Justice and as such he...
2. Should damned well better not be in the business of "believing"; and instead he should be in the business of weighing despite his beliefs...
And as it happens he is famous for being unpredictable. Which means he is probably one of the best Justices of the Nine. It's an old fashioned notion that a wise and seasoned judge should be one who rules against his own convictions when swayed by cold logic.
Enter, cold logic:
Gay marriage guarantees the lack of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent to children in that formative environment 100% of the time.
That is a cold FACT that nobody can dispute.
.
More adults around is usually always better, as long as they get along. More money, more attention, more likely that someone will be home when the kids are. That part isn't rocket-science and has been looked into.Oh, I can tell you what I think is likely, based on his past rulings. Your assessment is based on what you imagine Kennedy HASN'T considered, based on your imagination. Which is mindlessly speculative claptrap. As you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what Kennedy has or hasn't considered.
I can quote Kennedy on what he's already said. You quote yourself AS Kennedy, attributing to him positions he's never uttered, prioritizes he's never voiced, and conclusions he's never used in any argument. All that just happen to match your beliefs perfectly.
That's silly. You imagining Kennedy believes the exact opposite of what he's already stated is meaningless. And has resulted in your absymal record of prediction....which is essentially worse than guessing.
I know two things about Kennedy:
1. He is a Supreme Court Justice and as such he...
2. Should damned well better not be in the business of "believing"; and instead he should be in the business of weighing despite his beliefs...
And as it happens he is famous for being unpredictable. Which means he is probably one of the best Justices of the Nine. It's an old fashioned notion that a wise and seasoned judge should be one who rules against his own convictions when swayed by cold logic.
Enter, cold logic:
Gay marriage guarantees the lack of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent to children in that formative environment 100% of the time.
That is a cold FACT that nobody can dispute.
You promote that we should use children as guinea pigs in experimenting with gay-lifestyle "marriages". I'm saying we have enough evidence already to show us that for the untold 100s of millions of future children, having both genders as parents and preferably blood parents is in their and society's best interest.
And of course, gay marriage is going to take children out of good, two parents of opposite gender households, right?
I could, perhaps, see your argument as having some merit if we weren't already a country filled with single parent homes and some pretty high divorce rates. What, I wonder, is the research on the difference between being raised by two same gender parents as opposed to one parent?
Yup. You either get two bread winners, which means more resources and stability for the kids. Or you get a full time caretaker, which means more attention and emotional support.
Its a win, win either way. Just like in hetero led families.