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

[Syriusly]

I cannot understand that which is nonsensical.

See. It appears like nonsense to you. Much the same as if someone were discoursing on physics in Urdu. The fact that you do not understand it does not mean it is without worth. Rather it is testament to your ignorance and stupidiity.

It appears to be nonsense to me- because it is nonsense.

I can no more understand it than I can a cow trying to lecture me on physics....

No, you think it's nonsense because you cannot understand it. But for smart people it makes perfect sense.

No smart person is making that argument. Anti gay bigots are making it (and it has failed), but not smart people.

Since you dont understand the argument how would you know? "Smart"does not equal "agrees with me" you know.

LOL.....I leave you to argue about smart......

 

[Seawytch]

I cannot understand that which is nonsensical.

See. It appears like nonsense to you. Much the same as if someone were discoursing on physics in Urdu. The fact that you do not understand it does not mean it is without worth. Rather it is testament to your ignorance and stupidiity.

It appears to be nonsense to me- because it is nonsense.

I can no more understand it than I can a cow trying to lecture me on physics....

No, you think it's nonsense because you cannot understand it. But for smart people it makes perfect sense.

No smart person is making that argument. Anti gay bigots are making it (and it has failed), but not smart people.

Since you dont understand the argument how would you know? "Smart"does not equal "agrees with me" you know.

It has failed in court of law after court of law with judges actually pointing out how utterly ridiculous the "argument" is:

These arguments are not those of serious people. Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why. Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have. [...] The state's attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in "ensuring humanity's continued existence" are at best illogical and even bewildering

http://static.squarespace.com/stati...6738abd43df/1404231026802/LoveMemoOpinion.pdf

 

[The Rabbi]

See. It appears like nonsense to you. Much the same as if someone were discoursing on physics in Urdu. The fact that you do not understand it does not mean it is without worth. Rather it is testament to your ignorance and stupidiity.

It appears to be nonsense to me- because it is nonsense.

I can no more understand it than I can a cow trying to lecture me on physics....

No, you think it's nonsense because you cannot understand it. But for smart people it makes perfect sense.

No smart person is making that argument. Anti gay bigots are making it (and it has failed), but not smart people.

Since you dont understand the argument how would you know? "Smart"does not equal "agrees with me" you know.

It has failed in court of law after court of law with judges actually pointing out how utterly ridiculous the "argument" is:

These arguments are not those of serious people. Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why. Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have. [...] The state's attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in "ensuring humanity's continued existence" are at best illogical and even bewildering

http://static.squarespace.com/stati...6738abd43df/1404231026802/LoveMemoOpinion.pdf

Yeah that's a suck piece of reasoning.

 

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

The states can legislate Pi = 3.5. That doesn't make it true.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

There are no children of Bill and Bob. Bill and Bob aren't physically capable of having children.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Well that makes as much sense as your arguments that children of heterosexual couples deserve protection but children of homosexual couples do not.

Homosexual couples don't have children.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Infertility is not a bar to marriage.

Simple. OK, let's move on.

 

[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.

There are no children of Bill and Bob. Bill and Bob aren't physically capable of having children.

Dont tell them that. They like to pretend.

 

[bripat9643]

Infertility is not a bar to marriage.

Simple. OK, let's move on.

Not having the correct genitals is a bar to marriage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

According to whom, bripat?

 

[Silhouette]

According to whom, bripat?

Biology. A state incentivizing gay marriage is a state incentivizing the absence of one of the children's blood parents 100% of the time/opposite gender role model missing also 100% of the time.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“The state's attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in "ensuring humanity's continued existence" are at best illogical and even bewildering.”

It is indeed illogical but not bewildering when one considers the fact that the motive behind seeking to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights is predicated solely on animus toward gay Americans, animus completely unwarranted and unfounded.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Parenting is not only or just, or at times, even biological, in immediate context and nuance.

And man can be a father, while it takes a real man to be a daddy.

The anti-argument by Sil and bri-pat just don't cut it.

 

[bripat9643]

According to whom, bripat?

According to logic and 10,000 years of human history.

 

[Silhouette]

Parenting is not only or just, or at times, even biological, in immediate context and nuance.

And man can be a father, while it takes a real man to be a daddy.

The anti-argument by Sil and bri-pat just don't cut it.

But a man is never a mother. A woman is never a father.

States must not be forced to incentivize a negative situation for the most important people in marriage: children.

100% of the time in "gay marriage" a child will be missing one of its biological parents.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Well that makes as much sense as your arguments that children of heterosexual couples deserve protection but children of homosexual couples do not.

Homosexual couples don't have children.

And our children, the children of my same sex partner and I, laughed out loud at the silly man on the internet.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then you better make all parents get married and stayed married.

The biological arguments by the hetero fascists fall quickly.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Well that makes as much sense as your arguments that children of heterosexual couples deserve protection but children of homosexual couples do not.

Homosexual couples don't have children.

And our children, the children of my same sex partner and I, laughed out loud at the silly man on the internet.

So those children each have genes from both of you?

Seriously?

 

[bripat9643]

Then you better make all parents get married and stayed married.

The biological arguments by the hetero fascists fall quickly.

Your idiocies don't bring down anything other than your reputation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Doesn't matter, bripat, at all.

You want to end adoptions or blended marriages.

Grow up and end your idiotic assertions.