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

[Syriusly]

Speaking of children of gay parents in the DOMA case

There is a striking aspect to Kennedy's surprisingly passionate opinion: He focuses directly on the children of same-sex couples. DOMA, he writes, "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."

That was then, this is now. I'll bet you dollars to donuts the idea of a state being forced by the fed (the power of himself alone as the swing Justice) to incentivize marriages for untold generations into the future as a petri experiment to strip children in those homes of at least one blood parent 100% of the time hadn't occured to Kennedy as he wrote that rather myopic, bleedingheart, kneejerk opinion.
.

I think you are correct about one thing- I am certain that your bat guano crazy claims had never occurred to Kennedy.

You should hope no one tries to make that argument.

 

[Silhouette]

Speaking of children of gay parents in the DOMA case

There is a striking aspect to Kennedy's surprisingly passionate opinion: He focuses directly on the children of same-sex couples. DOMA, he writes, "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."

Kennedy was being manipulated by a very clever cult..

..That was then, this is now. I'll bet you dollars to donuts the idea of a state being forced by the fed (the power of himself alone as the swing Justice) to incentivize marriages for untold generations into the future as a petri experiment to strip children in those homes of at least one blood parent 100% of the time hadn't occured to Kennedy as he wrote that rather myopic, bleedingheart, kneejerk opinion.

If Kennedy truly cares about children, he will rethink his logic to include those untold generations of future children and how missing one of their parents 100% of the time will be "of benefit to children, or the state they live in"...

There is an issue of a temporal nature that needs to enter this debate. Society sits at a fork in the road where one of the most important questions in the history of this country stands to permanently divert the core of society (its future via its children's formative mileu) from a path it originally set out on.

This is truly, the final assault on marriage, the final assault on the core of a once-moral culture. Moral in the sense of having boundaries, healthy ones and a sense of selfless restraint and compassion for children at least. This "situation" with so-called same-sex marriage sits poised to deliver a death blow to the developing minds of our future generations.

All I'm asking Kenndey to do is THINK ABOUT IT FIRST before he shoots from the hip with a bleeding heart reaction. Think of the future children, not the ones before him today. For children's future numbers and formative-impact is ever so much greater than the ones today in the present tense..

...yet even still we have evidence today that gay marriage is not in the best interest of the poor children caught up in it..

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....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

Justice Kennedy, in his compassion for the suffering of children, might want to consider that this boy Tommy, instead of suffering from "gender identity disorder", might be suffering from "my gender doesn't matter" disorder...

 

[Skylar]

hat was then, this is now. I'll bet you dollars to donuts the idea of a state being forced by the fed (the power of himself alone as the swing Justice) to incentivize marriages for untold generations into the future as a petri experiment to strip children in those homes of at least one blood parent 100% of the time hadn't occured to Kennedy as he wrote that rather myopic, bleedingheart, kneejerk opinion.

You've been wrong on every single USSC outcome you've commented on. Remember when you insisted that the stay granted Utah meant that the SCOTUS believed in gay marriage bans and were intent on overturning any ruling that challenged them? You were laughably wrong. As the court so elegantly demonstrated by lifting that stay and denying one from 4 other circuit court districts.

You don't have any insight into the courts intent. Your predictions are wrong. Your assumptoins are wrong. The outcomes you insist are about to come to pass are wrong. But this time your record of perfect failure is different?

Um, why? You're still using the exact same process: projecting your hopes and beliefs onto other people, and then insisting that they must think just like you do. And the record of accuracy of your process is spectacularly, ineptly poor.

If Kennedy truly cares about children, he will rethink his logic to include those untold generations of future children and how missing one of their parents 100% of the time will be "of benefit to children, or the state they live in"...

Dude, even YOU don't give a shit about this standard. As any straight couple adopting or using artificial insemination would violate it. Almost every instance of 'children missing one of their parents' is with straight couples .And yet the practice of adoption is still legal. So is artificial insemination. The harm that you predicted never came to pass. So why would Kennedy care about your hapless predictions of future doom when we have thousands of years of adoption that prove your prognostication is just meaningless, ignorant babble?

You can't even factually establish the 'harm' you claim. And ignore virtually every instance of the 'harm' you allege. Demonstrating in a stroke that you can't connect your claims to reality, and could give a fiddler's **** about harm to children if you could. As the only time you care about 'harm to children', even conceptually....is if you can use it to demean gays and try and strip them of rights.

If harm to children doesn't serve that purpose, you could care less about it. Show us that even you don't take your standards seriously. Why then would Kennedy be swayed by claims that even YOU don't think are true, you can't factually establish and history explicitly contradicts?

There is no reason.

 

[Silhouette]

Dude, even YOU don't give a shit about this standard. As any straight couple adopting or using artificial insemination would violate it. Almost every instance of 'children missing one of their parents' is with straight couples .And yet the practice of adoption is still legal. So is artificial insemination. The harm that you predicted never came to pass. So why would Kennedy care about your hapless predictions of future doom when we have thousands of years of adoption that prove your prognostication is just meaningless, ignorant babble?

The states are in the business of incentivizing marriage for the benefit of children, not to achieve perfection, but to attempt to achieve it. There is a very crucial difference between the two. You are arguing from an "achieving perfection" angle; whereas I am not. I am arguing from an angle of what the state wants the best mileu for children to be, and holding out that brass ring to entice people to grab for it. People will grab and fall short (childless couples that are hetero or adopt) but the blood-parents model is tried and true. So the state holds out that "both blood parents of the children" brass ring. A childless or adopting hetero couple does not alter the shape, size or shine of that brass ring.


It will never achieve perfection it wants to. But it may come close. And that is a state's right to do for itself. Because in so doing it nudges the social norms in the direction IT wants. And not the direction some neo-clamoring minority-numbered cult wants under the whining guise of "civil rights"..even when they know that means stripping children of their civil rights to both blood parents in the home, or the best shot at achieving that.

Gays are knowingly saying in essence "our way and the children be damned. If they are collateral damage, so be it." They know missing one of the genders in the home is formatively-bad. They know missing one of the blood parents in the home is depriving that child. And they don't care...

 

[Syriusly]

Speaking of children of gay parents in the DOMA case

There is a striking aspect to Kennedy's surprisingly passionate opinion: He focuses directly on the children of same-sex couples. DOMA, he writes, "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."

Kennedy was being manipulated by a very clever cult..
...

Oh good- go for that argument.

Because nothing convinces a swing vote more than telling him that he is being manipulated.......

 

[Syriusly]

Dude, even YOU don't give a shit about this standard. As any straight couple adopting or using artificial insemination would violate it. Almost every instance of 'children missing one of their parents' is with straight couples .And yet the practice of adoption is still legal. So is artificial insemination. The harm that you predicted never came to pass. So why would Kennedy care about your hapless predictions of future doom when we have thousands of years of adoption that prove your prognostication is just meaningless, ignorant babble?

The states are in the business of incentivizing marriage for the benefit of children, not to achieve perfection, but to attempt to achieve it. ...

But as the courts have pointed out- the States aren't even attempting to achieve it.

States could be specifically trying to incentivize children being raised by their natural parents- but there is nothing in the marriage law that does that.

And if States did that- they would be telling couples who adopt that their marriage is not as important to adopted children.

Currently we incentivize adoption

Since 2003, families who adopted a child with special needs from foster care could claim a federal adoption tax credit even if they had no adoption expenses. Children who receive adoption assistance/subsidy benefits are considered children with special needs. Other adoptive families are also eligible for the credit, but must have (and be able to document, if requested by the IRS) qualified adoption expenses.

Because children abandoned by their heterosexual parents deserve homes, and we incentivize adoption to get those children adopted.

We don't just give $1,000 to every couple that marries, in the hopes that they will adopt children.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh good- go for that argument.

Because nothing convinces a swing vote more than telling him that he is being manipulated.......

Kennedy is being manipulated to kneejerk-react to the sympathy play of "think how it will hurt our (comparatively small number of) kids" while it lulls him to forget the untold hundreds of millions of kids into generations in the future unseen, who will be legally deincentivized (stripped) of their civil right to have both genders in the home as blood-protectors and role models for society at large...and the untried damage that is likely to do to their little formative minds...

For all intents and purposes, this lesbian couple from ground zero of the radiating-outward movement (Berkely, CA) are the picture-perfect "normal, stable" lesbian couple...except...

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...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

I wonder how Justice Kennedy would feel if doctors taking orders from the "CQR" methods at the APA diagnosed HIM as an 11-year old boy with "gender identity disorder" instead of "my gender doesn't matter" disorder and impanted a female hormone chip in his arm suppressing the development of his deep voice, facial hair, broad shoulders and testical/penis growth "to prepare him better to decide to become a girl"...??

Wake up oh hypnotized/manipulated crowd. The little boy named "Tammy" is tugging at your coatsleeve begging you to notice that the Emperor has no clothes...

 

[Skylar]

The states are in the business of incentivizing marriage for the benefit of children, not to achieve perfection, but to attempt to achieve it.

If their standard is sufficient to exclude a minority group from marriage, the same standard has to be applied to every group. Not just the targeted minority. The fact that the States exempt straights from this procreation standard but use it as justification to exclude gays demonstrates a profound equal protection violation.

As if the standard were valid, then married couples couldn't adopt. Married couples couldn't artificially inseminate. There could be no blended families of divorce. Sterile couples couldn't marry at all. And marriages for childless couples would be invalidated. Hell, if applied consistently, your grandparent's marriage would be invalidated the moment either of them could no longer sire or bear a child.

But no one is held to the standard. No one is required to procreate or be able to procreate in order to be married. No one. Why then would we invent a non-existent legal standard that applies to no one.....and then exempt all straights and apply it only to gays?

It makes no sense.

There is a very crucial difference between the two. You are arguing from an "achieving perfection" angle; whereas I am not.

I'm applying the equal protection angle. If its the failure of gays to meet the procreation standard that is sufficient to deny them the fundamental right to marry, then ANYONE who fails that standard would also be denied this right.

But its only applied to gays. No other group has this standard applied to it. No straight is denied the right to marry because they can't bear or sire children. Or choose not to. Or because they adopt. Or because they're artificially inseminated. Or any of the myriad of ways the 'procreation' standard could be violated.

If the standard is the reason for exclusion, you have have to apply that standard to everyone. That millions of folks that fail that standard are allowed to marry demonstrates that its not the standard that is the reason for exclusion. And that exemptions for those who can't meet the standard are perfectly valid within the legal union of marriage.

Either grant gays the same 'imperfect' exemptions you'd give any infertile straight couple.....or apply the 'procreation' standard to gay and straights alike. Its one or the other. You can't deny the exemptions under the guise of 'imperfection', when you grant 'imperfection' exemptions to straight couples on a daily basis.

I am arguing from an angle of what the state wants the best mileu for children to be, and holding out that brass ring to entice people to grab for it. People will grab and fall short (childless couples that are hetero or adopt) but the blood-parents model is tried and true. So the state holds out that "both blood parents of the children" brass ring. A childless or adopting hetero couple does not alter the shape, size or shine of that brass ring.

Obviously not....as the 'harm to children' you allege is perpetrated almost entirely by straights. Almost all adoptions and artificial insemination are by straights. And every single one violates the 'best mileu for children' standard. Yet you're perfectly content to allow straight parents to violate this standard to their heart's content and do so within the protection of legal marriage.

As you don't believe that your own standard 'harms' children. You believe that gays harm children. As you've said over and over. Demonstrating naked hypocrisy. And robbing your 'best mileu for children' of any rational basis.

Which your opposition to gay marriage in general never had to begin with.[/QUOTE]

 

[Skylar]

Kennedy is being manipulated to kneejerk-react to the sympathy play of "think how it will hurt our (comparatively small number of) kids" while it lulls him to forget the untold hundreds of millions of kids into generations in the future unseen, who will be legally deincentivized (stripped) of their civil right to have both genders in the home as blood-protectors and role models for society at large...and the untried damage that is likely to do to their little formative minds...

I'm pretty sure Kennedy has a firmer grasp on his beliefs and motivations than you do.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh good- go for that argument.

Because nothing convinces a swing vote more than telling him that he is being manipulated.......

Kennedy is being manipulated to kneejerk-react to the sympathy play of "think how it will hurt our (comparatively small number of) kids" ..

Please be there during the oral arguments to tell him that...

Pretty please.

I want him to know that the nutjobs are the ones on the side of discrimination against homosexuals.

 

[Skylar]

I wonder how Justice Kennedy would feel if doctors taking orders from the "CQR" methods at the APA diagnosed HIM as an 11-year old boy with "gender identity disorder" instead of "my gender doesn't matter" disorder and impanted a female hormone chip in his arm suppressing the development of his deep voice, facial hair, broad shoulders and testical/penis growth "to prepare him better to decide to become a girl"...??

If anecdotal examples of child abuse by any person of a particular sexual orientation were enough to invalidate the marriages of ALL people of that same orientation...

.....then straights are so completely fucked.

 

[Syriusly]

I wonder how Justice Kennedy would feel if doctors taking orders from the "CQR" methods at the APA diagnosed HIM as an 11-year old boy with "gender identity disorder" instead of "my gender doesn't matter" disorder and impanted a female hormone chip in his arm suppressing the development of his deep voice, facial hair, broad shoulders and testical/penis growth "to prepare him better to decide to become a girl"...??

If anecdotal examples of child abuse by any person of a particular sexual orientation were enough to invalidate the marriages of ALL people of that same orientation...

.....then straights are so completely fucked.

Yeah.....can we just roll out Honey Boo Boo and her mom wanting to date a child sex offender?

 

[Skylar]

I wonder how Justice Kennedy would feel if doctors taking orders from the "CQR" methods at the APA diagnosed HIM as an 11-year old boy with "gender identity disorder" instead of "my gender doesn't matter" disorder and impanted a female hormone chip in his arm suppressing the development of his deep voice, facial hair, broad shoulders and testical/penis growth "to prepare him better to decide to become a girl"...??

If anecdotal examples of child abuse by any person of a particular sexual orientation were enough to invalidate the marriages of ALL people of that same orientation...

.....then straights are so completely fucked.

Yeah.....can we just roll out Honey Boo Boo and her mom wanting to date a child sex offender?

Well damn. I guess that means straight marriages are no longer valid. So who is gonna call Grandma and Grandpa and tell them they are now living in sin?

 

[Silhouette]

I wonder how Justice Kennedy would feel if doctors taking orders from the "CQR" methods at the APA diagnosed HIM as an 11-year old boy with "gender identity disorder" instead of "my gender doesn't matter" disorder and impanted a female hormone chip in his arm suppressing the development of his deep voice, facial hair, broad shoulders and testical/penis growth "to prepare him better to decide to become a girl"...??

If anecdotal examples of child abuse by any person of a particular sexual orientation were enough to invalidate the marriages of ALL people of that same orientation.....then straights are so completely fucked.

Child abuse and institutionalized child abuse are two different things. Kennedy supporting the two lesbians drugging their son to be a girl would be an example of institutionalized child abuse. As of this date, I've found ZERO links to members of the LGBT community openly denouncing what those two lesbians are doing. However, if you find an instance of hetero child abuse, it is denounced from every corner of the hetero community openly and LOUDLY..

I maintain that if Kennedy was a boy being raised by two lesbians, he would be very unhappy about them having a female hormone implant in his arm as an 11 year old in order to delay his voice lowering and his full genital development in order to prepare him to be a female..

 

[Syriusly]

I wonder how Justice Kennedy would feel if doctors taking orders from the "CQR" methods at the APA diagnosed HIM as an 11-year old boy with "gender identity disorder" instead of "my gender doesn't matter" disorder and impanted a female hormone chip in his arm suppressing the development of his deep voice, facial hair, broad shoulders and testical/penis growth "to prepare him better to decide to become a girl"...??

If anecdotal examples of child abuse by any person of a particular sexual orientation were enough to invalidate the marriages of ALL people of that same orientation.....then straights are so completely fucked.

Child abuse and institutionalized child abuse are two different things. Kennedy supporting the two lesbians drugging their son to be a girl would be an example of institutionalized child abuse. As of this date, I've found ZERO links to members of the LGBT community openly denouncing what those two lesbians are doing. However, if you find an instance of hetero child abuse, it is denounced from every corner of the hetero community openly and LOUDLY..

I maintain that if Kennedy was a boy being raised by two lesbians, he would be very unhappy about them having a female hormone implant in his arm as an 11 year old in order to delay his voice lowering and his full genital development in order to prepare him to be a female..

If it is child abuse- then why haven't these two mom's been arrested?

Simple enough question- oh wait- I know the answer- the gay mafia!

Of course the real answer is that there are both gay and straight families who have children who are struggling with sexual identity issues, and doctors are working with them on the solutions.

Sex-change treatment for kids on the rise - CBS News

Why Justice Kennedy would focus on unmarried lesbian mom's and ignore the multitued of married straight parents dealing with the same issue.....that would only happen in the wet dream of a homophobe.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, I'm sure Syriusly...in a lesbian home, I'm sure that boy has never heard a disparaging word about men or males in general...I'm sure he'd never get it in his head that being male was a bad thing...not at all...mmm hmm..

If it is child abuse- then why haven't these two mom's been arrested?
.

That's an excellent question. One of the best you've posed thus far..

 

[Skylar]

I wonder how Justice Kennedy would feel if doctors taking orders from the "CQR" methods at the APA diagnosed HIM as an 11-year old boy with "gender identity disorder" instead of "my gender doesn't matter" disorder and impanted a female hormone chip in his arm suppressing the development of his deep voice, facial hair, broad shoulders and testical/penis growth "to prepare him better to decide to become a girl"...??

If anecdotal examples of child abuse by any person of a particular sexual orientation were enough to invalidate the marriages of ALL people of that same orientation.....then straights are so completely fucked.

Child abuse and institutionalized child abuse are two different things.

An anecdotal example doesn't establish 'institutional' anything. Given that almost all child abuse is committed by straight parents, your standard dictates which sexual orientation must never be allowed to marry: straights.

Its a foolish standard, but its yours.

And if the actions of parents you don't know nor have ever met DON'T invalidate your marriage, why then would no gay or lesbian ever be allowed to marry based on the actions of a random lesbian couple? Obviously, they wouldn't be. Its ludicrious to hold all gays responsible for the action of any gay, just like its ridiculous to hold all straights responsible for the actions of any straight.

But you always abosolve straights of the standards of responsibility you hold gays to. A double standard. Color me shocked.

Kennedy supporting the two lesbians drugging their son to be a girl would be an example of institutionalized child abuse.

Kennedy has never commented on it. You're imagining Kennedy supports it, pretending you're Kennedy. And that has never worked out well for you.

As of this date, I've found ZERO links to members of the LGBT community openly denouncing what those two lesbians are doing. However, if you find an instance of hetero child abuse, it is denounced from every corner of the hetero community openly and LOUDLY..

Then why is almost all child abuse inflicted by straight parents? And of course, if 'harm to children' is your standard, why do you dismiss almost every case of child abuse?

Simple: a child's suffering is only relevant to you if it lets you bash gays. If it doesn't, it means nothing to you. When your hatred of homosexuals outweighs your hatred of child abusers, you've lost perspective, Sil.

I maintain that if Kennedy was a boy being raised by two lesbians, he would be very unhappy about them having a female hormone implant in his arm as an 11 year old in order to delay his voice lowering and his full genital development in order to prepare him to be a female..

And I maintain that if you were gay, you'd have a very different perspective on gay marriage. And would demand all the rights and freedoms that straights have.

And you'd be right to demand it.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, I'm sure Syriusly...in a lesbian home, I'm sure that boy has never heard a disparaging word about men or males in general...I'm sure he'd never get it in his head that being male was a bad thing...not at all...mmm hmm..

Laughing....so let me get this right. You just pretended to be Kennedy, and now you're pretending to be a random lesbian couple you don't know nor have ever met.

Sil, you don't speak for these people. And your fantasies about people you don't know aren't evidence. They're imagination.[/QUOTE]

 

[Skylar]

There is a very crucial difference between the two. You are arguing from an "achieving perfection" angle; whereas I am not.

I'm applying the equal protection angle. If its the failure of gays to meet the procreation standard that is sufficient to deny them the fundamental right to marry, then ANYONE who fails that standard would also be denied this right.

But its only applied to gays. No other group has this standard applied to it. No straight is denied the right to marry because they can't bear or sire children. Or choose not to. Or because they adopt. Or because they're artificially inseminated. Or any of the myriad of ways the 'procreation' standard could be violated.

If the standard is the reason for exclusion, you have have to apply that standard to everyone. That millions of folks that fail that standard are allowed to marry demonstrates that its not the standard that is the reason for exclusion. And that exemptions for those who can't meet the standard are perfectly valid within the legal union of marriage.

Either grant gays the same 'imperfect' exemptions you'd give any infertile straight couple.....or apply the 'procreation' standard to gay and straights alike. Its one or the other. You can't deny the exemptions under the guise of 'imperfection', when you grant 'imperfection' exemptions to straight couples on a daily basis.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, I'm sure Syriusly...in a lesbian home, I'm sure that boy has never heard a disparaging word about men or males in general...I'm sure he'd never get it in his head that being male was a bad thing...not at all...mmm hmm..
..

Well unlike yourself Silhouette, I don't rely upon lies, speculation and innuendo- so i won't speculate at what happens in someone's home.

I mean that would be like me speculating that in your home all people hear are that homosexuals are evil and should be required to wear pink armbands.....