6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb's Up to States' Choice on Gay Marriage

[Syriusly]

Near perfect record of failures by Sil and bripat and others will indeed not cut it.

The end game is now in play.

If gay marriage was such a sure thing, why don't you put it to state votes?

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

It is a constitutional issue, and the courts are an appropriate venue to decide constitutional issues.

What part of the Constitution deals with marriage? Oh yeah, the 10th Amendment.

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

It is a constitutional issue, and the courts are an appropriate venue to decide constitutional issues

It's not the same reason. It's not even close. The circumstances are completely different.
The reason gay marriage went to the courts is because it failed politically.

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them. However, the active repeal of the laws was not complete until Alabama did so in 2000 after failing to do so in several earlier plebiscites on the matter.[7] At the time, nearly 526,000 people voted against the repeal. [8]

Politically in Alabama, mixed race marriage failed politically until the year 2000- 23 years after the courts decided the issue

It is a constitutional issue, and the courts are an appropriate venue to decide constitutional issues

 

[Syriusly]

Seriously- that is a horribly flawed argument.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Oh- by the way- the biggest issue for inheritance is not with children- it is with spouses.

Which was the issue behind Windsor

Doesnt matter.
Most straight couples who marry have children
Most gay couples who marry do not have children.
That is simply fact and no amount of wriggling will change it.

And is irrelevant - both to the argument- and to the post I was responding to.

Your reasoning would be the basis of discriminating against infertile couples- since most straight couples can have children.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Rights are not enforced simply because a group is more likely to have children than another group.

Don't believe me?

The Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners in prison have the right to marry- and most prisoners in prison to do not have children while in prison.

You're just not getting this.
It is not a test whether two people can marry as to whether they can produce children. It is a statment of fact that generally and characteristically heterosexual people who marry do in fact produce children. Thus the state has an interest in fostering that relationship. Thus the state awards benefits for that relationship.
Generally and characteristically gay people do not produce chidlren. Ergo the state has no reason to favor that relationship.

No- I am not getting the flawed argument you are trying to make.

Yes- most heterosexuals people who marry do have children. But heterosexual people have children without getting married. And heterosexual people get married with no intention or ability to have children.

States make no linkage between the right to marry- and the responsibilities of raising children. They don't require married parents to stay together, they don't require unmarried parents to marry.

We don't know whether or not gay married couples tend to have children or not- since we have no science to support it yet- but we do know that gay parents have children.

You apparently believe that the children of gay parents do not deserve married parents- you don't believe that those children do not deserve the benefits of marriage that the children of heterosexual parents get.

Why do you think that the children of gay parents should be treated like second class citizens?

OK, I see the problem.
Like most libs you live in a binary world. Something is either totally forbidden or completely permitted without restriction.
But real life isn't like that.
I've tried explaining this to you three times and you still dont get it. WHy would a fourth time be any better?

I agree- you repeating why you think that the children of heterosexual parents deserve state 'incentives' encouraging their parents to marry, but the children of gay parents don't- will not make any more sense repeating it a 4th time.

 

[The Rabbi]

Doesnt matter.
Most straight couples who marry have children
Most gay couples who marry do not have children.
That is simply fact and no amount of wriggling will change it.

And is irrelevant - both to the argument- and to the post I was responding to.

Your reasoning would be the basis of discriminating against infertile couples- since most straight couples can have children.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Rights are not enforced simply because a group is more likely to have children than another group.

Don't believe me?

The Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners in prison have the right to marry- and most prisoners in prison to do not have children while in prison.

You're just not getting this.
It is not a test whether two people can marry as to whether they can produce children. It is a statment of fact that generally and characteristically heterosexual people who marry do in fact produce children. Thus the state has an interest in fostering that relationship. Thus the state awards benefits for that relationship.
Generally and characteristically gay people do not produce chidlren. Ergo the state has no reason to favor that relationship.

No- I am not getting the flawed argument you are trying to make.

Yes- most heterosexuals people who marry do have children. But heterosexual people have children without getting married. And heterosexual people get married with no intention or ability to have children.

States make no linkage between the right to marry- and the responsibilities of raising children. They don't require married parents to stay together, they don't require unmarried parents to marry.

We don't know whether or not gay married couples tend to have children or not- since we have no science to support it yet- but we do know that gay parents have children.

You apparently believe that the children of gay parents do not deserve married parents- you don't believe that those children do not deserve the benefits of marriage that the children of heterosexual parents get.

Why do you think that the children of gay parents should be treated like second class citizens?

OK, I see the problem.
Like most libs you live in a binary world. Something is either totally forbidden or completely permitted without restriction.
But real life isn't like that.
I've tried explaining this to you three times and you still dont get it. WHy would a fourth time be any better?

I agree- you repeating why you think that the children of heterosexual parents deserve state 'incentives' encouraging their parents to marry, but the children of gay parents don't- will not make any more sense repeating it a 4th time.

See. I didnt write anything remotely resembling that and yet you paraphrase what I wrote that way. There is no arguing with someone who cannot comprehend a view different from his own.

 

[The Rabbi]

If gay marriage was such a sure thing, why don't you put it to state votes?

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

It is a constitutional issue, and the courts are an appropriate venue to decide constitutional issues.

What part of the Constitution deals with marriage? Oh yeah, the 10th Amendment.

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

It is a constitutional issue, and the courts are an appropriate venue to decide constitutional issues

It's not the same reason. It's not even close. The circumstances are completely different.
The reason gay marriage went to the courts is because it failed politically.

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them. However, the active repeal of the laws was not complete until Alabama did so in 2000 after failing to do so in several earlier plebiscites on the matter.[7] At the time, nearly 526,000 people voted against the repeal. [8]

Politically in Alabama, mixed race marriage failed politically until the year 2000- 23 years after the courts decided the issue

It is a constitutional issue, and the courts are an appropriate venue to decide constitutional issues

So until 1990 mixed race marriages were banned in some states?
How old are you, again?

 

[Syriusly]

From the Wisconsin decision:

Defendants fail to distinguish this case from the others in which the Supreme Court
considered the constitutionality of laws that denied the right to marry to some class of
citizens. Loving, 388 U.S. 1 (interracial marriage); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374
(1978) (marriage of parents who fail to make child support payments); Turner v. Safley, 482
U.S. 78 (1987) (marriage of prisoners). Although defendants say that their argument is
“consistent” with Loving, Zablocki and Turner because those cases did nothing more than
“recognize a negative right,” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 10, defendants do not explain why
marriage is a “positive right” when the state discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,
but a “negative right” when it discriminates on the basis of race, custody or financial status

Badly flawed argument.
The proponents of gay marriage are not proposing to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. If what they want passes any two men or any two women could get marred regardless of sexual orientation.
That's a fail.

I am not even sure what your point is supposed to be.

Proponents of 'gay marriage' i.e. same gender couples being legally allowed to marry- are asking to be treated like any opposite gender couple- regardless of sexual orientation.

No, they are asking for special rights not available..

Proponents of 'gay marriage' i.e. same gender couples being legally allowed to marry- are asking to be treated like any opposite gender couple- regardless of sexual orientation.

Rights available now in 31 states.

That wasnt what you quotd. The opinion you quoted spoke about discrimination against people based on sexual orientation as an inappropriate reason to deny marriage.
But it is not discrimination based on sexual orientation. Any two men or any two women who wanted to marry would be denied, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Here is what i said:

From the Wisconsin decision:

Defendants fail to distinguish this case from the others in which the Supreme Court
considered the constitutionality of laws that denied the right to marry to some class of
citizens. Loving, 388 U.S. 1 (interracial marriage); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374
(1978) (marriage of parents who fail to make child support payments); Turner v. Safley, 482
U.S. 78 (1987) (marriage of prisoners). Although defendants say that their argument is
“consistent” with Loving, Zablocki and Turner because those cases did nothing more than
“recognize a negative right,” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 10, defendants do not explain why
marriage is a “positive right” when the state discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,
but a “negative right” when it discriminates on the basis of race, custody or financial status

I am not even sure what your point is supposed to be.

Proponents of 'gay marriage' i.e. same gender couples being legally allowed to marry- are asking to be treated like any opposite gender couple- regardless of sexual orientation.

Proponents of 'gay marriage' i.e. same gender couples being legally allowed to marry- are asking to be treated like any opposite gender couple- regardless of sexual orientation.

Rights available now in 31 states

 

[The Rabbi]

Badly flawed argument.
The proponents of gay marriage are not proposing to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. If what they want passes any two men or any two women could get marred regardless of sexual orientation.
That's a fail.

I am not even sure what your point is supposed to be.

Proponents of 'gay marriage' i.e. same gender couples being legally allowed to marry- are asking to be treated like any opposite gender couple- regardless of sexual orientation.

No, they are asking for special rights not available..

Proponents of 'gay marriage' i.e. same gender couples being legally allowed to marry- are asking to be treated like any opposite gender couple- regardless of sexual orientation.

Rights available now in 31 states.

That wasnt what you quotd. The opinion you quoted spoke about discrimination against people based on sexual orientation as an inappropriate reason to deny marriage.
But it is not discrimination based on sexual orientation. Any two men or any two women who wanted to marry would be denied, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Here is what i said:

From the Wisconsin decision:

Defendants fail to distinguish this case from the others in which the Supreme Court
considered the constitutionality of laws that denied the right to marry to some class of
citizens. Loving, 388 U.S. 1 (interracial marriage); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374
(1978) (marriage of parents who fail to make child support payments); Turner v. Safley, 482
U.S. 78 (1987) (marriage of prisoners). Although defendants say that their argument is
“consistent” with Loving, Zablocki and Turner because those cases did nothing more than
“recognize a negative right,” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 10, defendants do not explain why
marriage is a “positive right” when the state discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,
but a “negative right” when it discriminates on the basis of race, custody or financial status

I am not even sure what your point is supposed to be.

Proponents of 'gay marriage' i.e. same gender couples being legally allowed to marry- are asking to be treated like any opposite gender couple- regardless of sexual orientation.

Proponents of 'gay marriage' i.e. same gender couples being legally allowed to marry- are asking to be treated like any opposite gender couple- regardless of sexual orientation.

Rights available now in 31 states

And again, the opinion is flawed. The law does not distinguish between couples based on sexual orientation. Thus there is no discrimination.

 

[Syriusly]

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

It is a constitutional issue, and the courts are an appropriate venue to decide constitutional issues.

What part of the Constitution deals with marriage? Oh yeah, the 10th Amendment.

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

It is a constitutional issue, and the courts are an appropriate venue to decide constitutional issues

It's not the same reason. It's not even close. The circumstances are completely different.
The reason gay marriage went to the courts is because it failed politically.

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them. However, the active repeal of the laws was not complete until Alabama did so in 2000 after failing to do so in several earlier plebiscites on the matter.[7] At the time, nearly 526,000 people voted against the repeal. [8]

Politically in Alabama, mixed race marriage failed politically until the year 2000- 23 years after the courts decided the issue

It is a constitutional issue, and the courts are an appropriate venue to decide constitutional issues

So until 1990 mixed race marriages were banned in some states?
How old are you, again?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

[re Loving v Virginia] With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them. However, the active repeal of the laws was not complete until Alabama did so in 2000 after failing to do so in several earlier plebiscites on the matter.[7] At the time, nearly 526,000 people voted against the repeal. [8]

Politically in Alabama, mixed race marriage failed politically until the year 2000- 23 years after the courts decided the issue

 

[The Rabbi]

What part of the Constitution deals with marriage? Oh yeah, the 10th Amendment.

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

It is a constitutional issue, and the courts are an appropriate venue to decide constitutional issues

It's not the same reason. It's not even close. The circumstances are completely different.
The reason gay marriage went to the courts is because it failed politically.

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them. However, the active repeal of the laws was not complete until Alabama did so in 2000 after failing to do so in several earlier plebiscites on the matter.[7] At the time, nearly 526,000 people voted against the repeal. [8]

Politically in Alabama, mixed race marriage failed politically until the year 2000- 23 years after the courts decided the issue

It is a constitutional issue, and the courts are an appropriate venue to decide constitutional issues

So until 1990 mixed race marriages were banned in some states?
How old are you, again?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

[re Loving v Virginia] With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them. However, the active repeal of the laws was not complete until Alabama did so in 2000 after failing to do so in several earlier plebiscites on the matter.[7] At the time, nearly 526,000 people voted against the repeal. [8]

Politically in Alabama, mixed race marriage failed politically until the year 2000- 23 years after the courts decided the issue

So Alabama did not recognize mixed race marriages until 2000? Is this really your point?

 

[Syriusly]

I am not even sure what your point is supposed to be.

Proponents of 'gay marriage' i.e. same gender couples being legally allowed to marry- are asking to be treated like any opposite gender couple- regardless of sexual orientation.

No, they are asking for special rights not available..

Proponents of 'gay marriage' i.e. same gender couples being legally allowed to marry- are asking to be treated like any opposite gender couple- regardless of sexual orientation.

Rights available now in 31 states.

That wasnt what you quotd. The opinion you quoted spoke about discrimination against people based on sexual orientation as an inappropriate reason to deny marriage.
But it is not discrimination based on sexual orientation. Any two men or any two women who wanted to marry would be denied, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Here is what i said:

From the Wisconsin decision:

Defendants fail to distinguish this case from the others in which the Supreme Court
considered the constitutionality of laws that denied the right to marry to some class of
citizens. Loving, 388 U.S. 1 (interracial marriage); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374
(1978) (marriage of parents who fail to make child support payments); Turner v. Safley, 482
U.S. 78 (1987) (marriage of prisoners). Although defendants say that their argument is
“consistent” with Loving, Zablocki and Turner because those cases did nothing more than
“recognize a negative right,” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 10, defendants do not explain why
marriage is a “positive right” when the state discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,
but a “negative right” when it discriminates on the basis of race, custody or financial status

I am not even sure what your point is supposed to be.

Proponents of 'gay marriage' i.e. same gender couples being legally allowed to marry- are asking to be treated like any opposite gender couple- regardless of sexual orientation.

Proponents of 'gay marriage' i.e. same gender couples being legally allowed to marry- are asking to be treated like any opposite gender couple- regardless of sexual orientation.

Rights available now in 31 states

And again, the opinion is flawed. The law does not distinguish between couples based on sexual orientation. Thus there is no discrimination.

Whether you think the opinion is flawed or not doesn't matter- nor does it matter whether I believe Sutton's argument is flawed. In both cases those opinions stand until the Supreme Court decides otherwise.

 

[Syriusly]

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

It is a constitutional issue, and the courts are an appropriate venue to decide constitutional issues

It's not the same reason. It's not even close. The circumstances are completely different.
The reason gay marriage went to the courts is because it failed politically.

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them. However, the active repeal of the laws was not complete until Alabama did so in 2000 after failing to do so in several earlier plebiscites on the matter.[7] At the time, nearly 526,000 people voted against the repeal. [8]

Politically in Alabama, mixed race marriage failed politically until the year 2000- 23 years after the courts decided the issue

It is a constitutional issue, and the courts are an appropriate venue to decide constitutional issues

So until 1990 mixed race marriages were banned in some states?
How old are you, again?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

[re Loving v Virginia] With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them. However, the active repeal of the laws was not complete until Alabama did so in 2000 after failing to do so in several earlier plebiscites on the matter.[7] At the time, nearly 526,000 people voted against the repeal. [8]

Politically in Alabama, mixed race marriage failed politically until the year 2000- 23 years after the courts decided the issue

So Alabama did not recognize mixed race marriages until 2000? Is this really your point?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

[re Loving v Virginia] With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them. However, the active repeal of the laws was not complete until Alabama did so in 2000 after failing to do so in several earlier plebiscites on the matter.[7] At the time, nearly 526,000 people voted against the repeal. [8]

Politically in Alabama, mixed race marriage failed politically until the year 2000- 23 years after the courts decided the issue

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not the same reason. It's not even close. The circumstances are completely different.
The reason gay marriage went to the courts is because it failed politically.

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them. However, the active repeal of the laws was not complete until Alabama did so in 2000 after failing to do so in several earlier plebiscites on the matter.[7] At the time, nearly 526,000 people voted against the repeal. [8]

Politically in Alabama, mixed race marriage failed politically until the year 2000- 23 years after the courts decided the issue

It is a constitutional issue, and the courts are an appropriate venue to decide constitutional issues

So until 1990 mixed race marriages were banned in some states?
How old are you, again?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

[re Loving v Virginia] With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them. However, the active repeal of the laws was not complete until Alabama did so in 2000 after failing to do so in several earlier plebiscites on the matter.[7] At the time, nearly 526,000 people voted against the repeal. [8]

Politically in Alabama, mixed race marriage failed politically until the year 2000- 23 years after the courts decided the issue

So Alabama did not recognize mixed race marriages until 2000? Is this really your point?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

[re Loving v Virginia] With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them. However, the active repeal of the laws was not complete until Alabama did so in 2000 after failing to do so in several earlier plebiscites on the matter.[7] At the time, nearly 526,000 people voted against the repeal. [8]

Politically in Alabama, mixed race marriage failed politically until the year 2000- 23 years after the courts decided the issue

Repeatign the same thing over and over isn't an argument.
You're done.
bye.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, they are asking for special rights not available..

Proponents of 'gay marriage' i.e. same gender couples being legally allowed to marry- are asking to be treated like any opposite gender couple- regardless of sexual orientation.

Rights available now in 31 states.

That wasnt what you quotd. The opinion you quoted spoke about discrimination against people based on sexual orientation as an inappropriate reason to deny marriage.
But it is not discrimination based on sexual orientation. Any two men or any two women who wanted to marry would be denied, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Here is what i said:

From the Wisconsin decision:

Defendants fail to distinguish this case from the others in which the Supreme Court
considered the constitutionality of laws that denied the right to marry to some class of
citizens. Loving, 388 U.S. 1 (interracial marriage); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374
(1978) (marriage of parents who fail to make child support payments); Turner v. Safley, 482
U.S. 78 (1987) (marriage of prisoners). Although defendants say that their argument is
“consistent” with Loving, Zablocki and Turner because those cases did nothing more than
“recognize a negative right,” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 10, defendants do not explain why
marriage is a “positive right” when the state discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,
but a “negative right” when it discriminates on the basis of race, custody or financial status

I am not even sure what your point is supposed to be.

Proponents of 'gay marriage' i.e. same gender couples being legally allowed to marry- are asking to be treated like any opposite gender couple- regardless of sexual orientation.

Proponents of 'gay marriage' i.e. same gender couples being legally allowed to marry- are asking to be treated like any opposite gender couple- regardless of sexual orientation.

Rights available now in 31 states

And again, the opinion is flawed. The law does not distinguish between couples based on sexual orientation. Thus there is no discrimination.

Whether you think the opinion is flawed or not doesn't matter- nor does it matter whether I believe Sutton's argument is flawed. In both cases those opinions stand until the Supreme Court decides otherwise.

Of course it matters. Otherwise why discuss it at all?
The Court will affirm its holding in Windsor: that states have the power to regulate marriage within the confines of civil rights law. Since homosexuality is not protected federally gay marriage is not protected and states may regulate it at will.

 

[Silhouette]

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

You seem to be arguing from a "gays trump children" civil rights position. The grand experiment (as Sutton defines it) of gay marriage has not yet played out with regards to the most important people involved in marriage: children.

Incentivizing the unfortunate situation of depriving a child of one of their blood parents 100% of the time is to a state's collective detriment through its subsequent generations.

Incentivizing the unfortunate situation of depriving a child of the opposite sex modeling offered in a normal marriage is to a state's collective detriment over time [by increasing the numbers of mentally ill people in each new generation].

Though Sutton is right, that we have not seen this experiment through enough time to make a comprehensive call , there are whisperings already for us to examine exactly where it's heading with respect to the most important members of marriage: Children..

How do you belong in a family where your young mind has deduced your gender doesn't matter...ie: YOU don't matter?

The lesbian parents of an 11-year-old boy who is undergoing the process of becoming a girl last night defended the decision, claiming it was better for a child to have a sex change when young. Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy....At age seven, after threatening genital mutilation on himself, psychiatrists diagnosed Thomas with gender identity disorder. By the age of eight, he began transitioning......This summer, he started taking hormone-blocking drugs, which will stop him from experiencing puberty............The hormone-suppressant, implanted in his upper left arm, will postpone the 11-year-old developing broad shoulders, deep voice and facial hair. The California boy 11 who is undergoing hormone blocking treatment Daily Mail Online

Psyciatrists from the cult that was formally known as the American Psychological Association (APA) diagnosed Thomas with "gender identity disorder", instead of "my gender doesn't matter" disorder.

That makes sense when an erstwhile scientific body decides to promote discarding data for "audited group-think" (a cult). Not kidding. They call it "CQR". Read about it here: Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren t to Blame They Rely on Science .. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Syriusly]

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

You seem to be arguing from a "gays trump children" civil rights position. m

No- I am arguing that you don't care about children at all- that you just calously use children as pawns to promote hatred of homosexuals.

I am pointing out that homosexual couples have children- and that even as you whine that marriage is all about the children- you are also arguing that the children of homosexuals do not deserve married parents.

Because bottom line is- you don't care about children- you only care about promoting discrimination against gays.

 

[Syriusly]

Proponents of 'gay marriage' i.e. same gender couples being legally allowed to marry- are asking to be treated like any opposite gender couple- regardless of sexual orientation.

Rights available now in 31 states.

That wasnt what you quotd. The opinion you quoted spoke about discrimination against people based on sexual orientation as an inappropriate reason to deny marriage.
But it is not discrimination based on sexual orientation. Any two men or any two women who wanted to marry would be denied, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Here is what i said:

From the Wisconsin decision:

Defendants fail to distinguish this case from the others in which the Supreme Court
considered the constitutionality of laws that denied the right to marry to some class of
citizens. Loving, 388 U.S. 1 (interracial marriage); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374
(1978) (marriage of parents who fail to make child support payments); Turner v. Safley, 482
U.S. 78 (1987) (marriage of prisoners). Although defendants say that their argument is
“consistent” with Loving, Zablocki and Turner because those cases did nothing more than
“recognize a negative right,” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 10, defendants do not explain why
marriage is a “positive right” when the state discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,
but a “negative right” when it discriminates on the basis of race, custody or financial status

I am not even sure what your point is supposed to be.

Proponents of 'gay marriage' i.e. same gender couples being legally allowed to marry- are asking to be treated like any opposite gender couple- regardless of sexual orientation.

Proponents of 'gay marriage' i.e. same gender couples being legally allowed to marry- are asking to be treated like any opposite gender couple- regardless of sexual orientation.

Rights available now in 31 states

And again, the opinion is flawed. The law does not distinguish between couples based on sexual orientation. Thus there is no discrimination.

Whether you think the opinion is flawed or not doesn't matter- nor does it matter whether I believe Sutton's argument is flawed. In both cases those opinions stand until the Supreme Court decides otherwise.

Of course it matters. Otherwise why discuss it at all?
The Court will affirm its holding in Windsor: that states have the power to regulate marriage within the confines of civil rights law. Since homosexuality is not protected federally gay marriage is not protected and states may regulate it at will.

Wow....I guess the Supreme Court will just quote you and not bother hearing the case at all......

Me?

I will wait for the Supreme Court's decision- not yours.

 

[Silhouette]

No- I am arguing that you don't care about children at all- that you just calously use children as pawns to promote hatred of homosexuals.

I am pointing out that homosexual couples have children- and that even as you whine that marriage is all about the children- you are also arguing that the children of homosexuals do not deserve married parents.

Because bottom line is- you don't care about children- you only care about promoting discrimination against gays.

I'm not against gay civil unions if they want to. Just no rights to adopt. Instead of looking at it as hatred of gays. Look at it as love of children.

Hurry up Syriusly, time to spam post # 273 off the page..

 

[Syriusly]

No- I am arguing that you don't care about children at all- that you just calously use children as pawns to promote hatred of homosexuals.

I am pointing out that homosexual couples have children- and that even as you whine that marriage is all about the children- you are also arguing that the children of homosexuals do not deserve married parents.

Because bottom line is- you don't care about children- you only care about promoting discrimination against gays.

I'm not against gay civil unions if they want to. Just no rights to adopt. Instead of looking at it as hatred of gays. Look at it as love of children.

Hurry up Syriusly, time to spam post # 273 off the page..

Thousands and thousands of children are being raised by gay couples.

Telling them that they don't deserve married parents is not 'love of children'- it is disdain for children- the children of homosexuals.

 

[The Rabbi]

No- I am arguing that you don't care about children at all- that you just calously use children as pawns to promote hatred of homosexuals.

I am pointing out that homosexual couples have children- and that even as you whine that marriage is all about the children- you are also arguing that the children of homosexuals do not deserve married parents.

Because bottom line is- you don't care about children- you only care about promoting discrimination against gays.

I'm not against gay civil unions if they want to. Just no rights to adopt. Instead of looking at it as hatred of gays. Look at it as love of children.

Hurry up Syriusly, time to spam post # 273 off the page..

Thousands and thousands of children are being raised by gay couples.

Telling them that they don't deserve married parents is not 'love of children'- it is disdain for children- the children of homosexuals.

Its because conservatives hate children. Right?

 

[Syriusly]

No- I am arguing that you don't care about children at all- that you just calously use children as pawns to promote hatred of homosexuals.

I am pointing out that homosexual couples have children- and that even as you whine that marriage is all about the children- you are also arguing that the children of homosexuals do not deserve married parents.

Because bottom line is- you don't care about children- you only care about promoting discrimination against gays.

I'm not against gay civil unions if they want to. Just no rights to adopt. Instead of looking at it as hatred of gays. Look at it as love of children.

Hurry up Syriusly, time to spam post # 273 off the page..

Thousands and thousands of children are being raised by gay couples.

Telling them that they don't deserve married parents is not 'love of children'- it is disdain for children- the children of homosexuals.

Its because conservatives hate children. Right?

No- it would appear that you specifically hate children.

You have argued that the State has an interest in ensuring a stable home for children- of heterosexual couples.
Because heterosexuals generally have children- and because you argue marriage is important for those children.

But the children of homosexual couples? Apparently you think that they need no such benefits of marriage like the children of heterosexual couples.

 

[Seawytch]

Seriously- that is a horribly flawed argument.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Oh- by the way- the biggest issue for inheritance is not with children- it is with spouses.

Which was the issue behind Windsor.

Straight couples generally and characteristically have children.
Gay couples generally and characteristically do not have children.
THe fact that some few do not follow these general characteristics is irrelevant for public policy.

Seriously- that is a horribly flawed argument.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Oh- by the way- the biggest issue for inheritance is not with children- it is with spouses.

Which was the issue behind Windsor

Doesnt matter.
Most straight couples who marry have children
Most gay couples who marry do not have children.
That is simply fact and no amount of wriggling will change it.

And is irrelevant - both to the argument- and to the post I was responding to.

Your reasoning would be the basis of discriminating against infertile couples- since most straight couples can have children.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Rights are not enforced simply because a group is more likely to have children than another group.

Don't believe me?

The Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners in prison have the right to marry- and most prisoners in prison to do not have children while in prison.

You're just not getting this.
It is not a test whether two people can marry as to whether they can produce children. It is a statment of fact that generally and characteristically heterosexual people who marry do in fact produce children. Thus the state has an interest in fostering that relationship. Thus the state awards benefits for that relationship.
Generally and characteristically gay people do not produce chidlren. Ergo the state has no reason to favor that relationship.

Illogical on its face. Since no infertile or childless by choice couple is prevented from civilly marrying, your "argument" fails.

Plus, gays DO have children, also rendering your "argument" (for lack of a better description) moot.