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

[Silhouette]

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.

Sidestepping the incentive question, Syriusly hopes the strawman of "gays can attempt to parent just as well or better than heteros" will take root and grow to overshadow the real issue at hand..

The problem is that the state incentivizing any child to be at a distinct, undeniable and emperical disadvantage to his or her peers by approving gay marriage, means that gays no matter how hard they try, can never replace the vital nurturing that heteros can.

In a gay marriage, the children in that marriage will be missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time. No state should be in the business of incentivizing a home condition where the child[ren] are guaranteed to be missing one of their blood parents or even the opposite gender 100% of the time. Shall I post again on the lesbians in CA drugging their 11 year old boy to "decide to be a girl" because he was trying to hack off his junk when he was 7 in order to fit in with "those that matter"?

This will come down to the proposed "civil rights" of gays vs the actual civil rights of children, and the rights of states to act as the guardians of children by what they do and do not incentivize.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Sidestepping the incentive question, Syriusly hopes the strawman of "gays can attempt to parent just as well or better than heteros" will take root and grow to overshadow the real issue at hand..

Only, the problem is that the state incentivizing any child to be at a distinct, undeniable and emperical disadvantage to his or her peers by approving gay marriage, means that gays no matter how hard they try, can never replace the vital nurturing that heteros can.

In a gay marriage, the children in that marriage will be missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time. No state should be in the business of incentivizing a home condition where the child[ren] are guaranteed to be missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time.

This will come down to the proposed "civil rights" of gays vs the actual civil rights of children, and the rights of states to act as the guardians of children by what they do and do not incentivize.

As I have said- it appears 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.

What could the reason be?

Obviously you either
a) are just using children as an excuse to attack gays or
b) believe that the children of homosexuals don't deserve to be treated with the same concern as the children of heterosexuals.

Either way you display a particularly callous disregard for children.

 

[bripat9643]

The substance of the pro marriage equality courts is far more coherent and consistent with Windsor than the nonsense the 6th and Sil are handing out.

Horseshit. The term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

The term is marriage- and in 31 states that term includes same gender couples.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Unions between to male fuck buddies are a practical joke.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Try reading the argument again.
I realize in your binary world things are either forbidden or totally without regulation but in the real world that's not how it is.

 

[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?

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.

Yoi appear incapable of reading something and drawing appropriate conclusions from it.
That means you are too stupid to engage in debate.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Try reading the argument again.
I realize in your binary world things are either forbidden or totally without regulation but in the real world that's not how it is. The fact that some heterosexual couples cannot reproduce or that some homosexual couples succeed in producing children is irrelevant.

 

[Syriusly]

The substance of the pro marriage equality courts is far more coherent and consistent with Windsor than the nonsense the 6th and Sil are handing out.

Horseshit. The term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

The term is marriage- and in 31 states that term includes same gender couples.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Unions between to male fuck buddies are a practical joke.

The term is marriage- and in 31 states that term includes same gender couples.

 

[Silhouette]

As I have said- it appears 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.

This isn't a question of the small number of children "needing the benefits of marriage" from gay arrangements today...or rather it is that question actually...

It's this small number's "rights" vs the overwhelming numbers of future children that can be predicted to suffer if gay marriage is incentivized by the various states to be missing one of their blood parents/the complimentarty gender 100% of the time. Children of single mothers would like those same benefits too. Do you hate them? Or are you now arguing that single mothers or fathers must be considered married (to themselves) also?

 

[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.

Yoi appear incapable of reading something and drawing appropriate conclusions from it.
That means you are too stupid to engage in debate.

I note that you don't actually attempt to argue that you don't hate children.

Because 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

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Yoi appear incapable of reading something and drawing appropriate conclusions from it.
That means you are too stupid to engage in debate.

I note that you don't actually attempt to argue that you don't hate children.

Because 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

You are correct. I hate children. I hate blacks, homos, spics, dogs, mom and apple pie too.
What were you saying again?

 

[The Rabbi]

As I have said- it appears 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.

This isn't a question of the small number of children "needing the benefits of marriage" from gay arrangements today...or rather it is that question actually...

It's this small number's "rights" vs the overwhelming numbers of future children that can be predicted to suffer if gay marriage is incentivized by the various states to be missing one of their blood parents/the complimentarty gender 100% of the time. Children of single mothers would like those same benefits too. Do you hate them? Or are you now arguing that single mothers or fathers must be considered married (to themselves) also?

They simply cannot understand the argument. It's like explaining aerodynamics to a hamster.

 

[Syriusly]

As I have said- it appears 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.

This isn't a question of the small number of children "needing the benefits of marriage" from gay arrangements today...or rather it is that question actually...

It's their "rights" vs the overwhelming numbers of future children that can be predicted to suffer if gay marriage is incentivized by the various states by missing one of their blood parents, the complimentarty gender 100% of the time. Children of single mothers would like those same benefits too. Do you hate them? Or are you now arguing that single mothers or fathers must be considered married also?

Well I am glad you are finally admitting that you don't care about the children of gay parents.

Children of single mothers face the same legal issues as children of single fathers.
Unless you want to argue that single parents should be outlawed, they are not part of the discussion.

You claim that the children of Bob and Jill deserve Bob and Jill to be married, because the children will benefit from marriage.
But you claim that the children of Bob and Bill, do not deserve Bob and Bill to be married, because the children of gay parents aren't.....well apparently worth as much to you.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Yoi appear incapable of reading something and drawing appropriate conclusions from it.
That means you are too stupid to engage in debate.

I note that you don't actually attempt to argue that you don't hate children.

Because 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

You are correct. I hate children. I hate blacks, homos, spics, dogs, mom and apple pie too.
What were you saying again?

None of that is a surprise to me.

 

[The Rabbi]

As I have said- it appears 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.

This isn't a question of the small number of children "needing the benefits of marriage" from gay arrangements today...or rather it is that question actually...

It's their "rights" vs the overwhelming numbers of future children that can be predicted to suffer if gay marriage is incentivized by the various states by missing one of their blood parents, the complimentarty gender 100% of the time. Children of single mothers would like those same benefits too. Do you hate them? Or are you now arguing that single mothers or fathers must be considered married also?

Well I am glad you are finally admitting that you don't care about the children of gay parents.

Children of single mothers face the same legal issues as children of single fathers.
Unless you want to argue that single parents should be outlawed, they are not part of the discussion.

You claim that the children of Bob and Jill deserve Bob and Jill to be married, because the children will benefit from marriage.
But you claim that the children of Bob and Bill, do not deserve Bob and Bill to be married, because the children of gay parents aren't.....well apparently worth as much to you.

That's actualluynothing like what he wrote. BUt we have established you are too stupid to read a paragraph and draw reasonable conclusions from it.

 

[Syriusly]

As I have said- it appears 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.

This isn't a question of the small number of children "needing the benefits of marriage" from gay arrangements today...or rather it is that question actually...

It's this small number's "rights" vs the overwhelming numbers of future children that can be predicted to suffer if gay marriage is incentivized by the various states to be missing one of their blood parents/the complimentarty gender 100% of the time. Children of single mothers would like those same benefits too. Do you hate them? Or are you now arguing that single mothers or fathers must be considered married (to themselves) also?

They simply cannot understand the argument. It's like explaining aerodynamics to a hamster.

I will admit it- I cannot understand bigotry and intollerence- nor can I understand arguing why the children of heterosexuals deserve the protection of marriage but the children of homosexuals do not.

 

[Silhouette]

This is what I actually said, asshole. Stop putting words into my mouth. You hope a page bleeds over and you can remake the conversation to your liking without answering to the questions put to you... Here is what was said:

As I have said- it appears 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.

This isn't a question of the small number of children "needing the benefits of marriage" from gay arrangements today...or rather it is that question actually...
It's this small number's "rights" vs the overwhelming numbers of future children that can be predicted to suffer if gay marriage is incentivized by the various states to be missing one of their blood parents/the complimentarty gender 100% of the time. Children of single mothers would like those same benefits too. Do you hate them? Or are you now arguing that single mothers or fathers must be considered married (to themselves) also?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Yoi appear incapable of reading something and drawing appropriate conclusions from it.
That means you are too stupid to engage in debate.

I note that you don't actually attempt to argue that you don't hate children.

Because 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

You are correct. I hate children. I hate blacks, homos, spics, dogs, mom and apple pie too.
What were you saying again?

None of that is a surprise to me.

SUrely.
But none of it invalidates my argument, an argument you cannot refute because you cannot understand it.

 

[Syriusly]

As I have said- it appears 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.

This isn't a question of the small number of children "needing the benefits of marriage" from gay arrangements today...or rather it is that question actually...

It's their "rights" vs the overwhelming numbers of future children that can be predicted to suffer if gay marriage is incentivized by the various states by missing one of their blood parents, the complimentarty gender 100% of the time. Children of single mothers would like those same benefits too. Do you hate them? Or are you now arguing that single mothers or fathers must be considered married also?

Well I am glad you are finally admitting that you don't care about the children of gay parents.

Children of single mothers face the same legal issues as children of single fathers.
Unless you want to argue that single parents should be outlawed, they are not part of the discussion.

You claim that the children of Bob and Jill deserve Bob and Jill to be married, because the children will benefit from marriage.
But you claim that the children of Bob and Bill, do not deserve Bob and Bill to be married, because the children of gay parents aren't.....well apparently worth as much to you.

That's actualluynothing like what he wrote. BUt we have established you are too stupid to read a paragraph and draw reasonable conclusions from it.

Actually it is.

Well I am glad you are finally admitting that you don't care about the children of gay parents.

Children of single mothers face the same legal issues as children of single fathers.
Unless you want to argue that single parents should be outlawed, they are not part of the discussion.

You claim that the children of Bob and Jill deserve Bob and Jill to be married, because the children will benefit from marriage.
But you claim that the children of Bob and Bill, do not deserve Bob and Bill to be married, because the children of gay parents aren't.....well apparently worth as much to you.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is what I actually said, asshole. Stop putting words into my mouth. You hope a page bleeds over and you can remake the conversation to your liking without answering to the questions put to you... Here is what was said:

As I have said- it appears 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.

This isn't a question of the small number of children "needing the benefits of marriage" from gay arrangements today...or rather it is that question actually...
It's this small number's "rights" vs the overwhelming numbers of future children that can be predicted to suffer if gay marriage is incentivized by the various states to be missing one of their blood parents/the complimentarty gender 100% of the time. Children of single mothers would like those same benefits too. Do you hate them? Or are you now arguing that single mothers or fathers must be considered married (to themselves) also?

Syriously hates children. That much is obvious.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Yoi appear incapable of reading something and drawing appropriate conclusions from it.
That means you are too stupid to engage in debate.

I note that you don't actually attempt to argue that you don't hate children.

Because 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

You are correct. I hate children. I hate blacks, homos, spics, dogs, mom and apple pie too.
What were you saying again?

None of that is a surprise to me.

SUrely.
But none of it invalidates my argument, an argument you cannot refute because you cannot understand it.

I cannot understand that which is nonsensical.