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

[bripat9643]

I understand your position, it's just entirely wrong. The state hands out marriage licenses with no concern as to whether you will or even can have children. When two old people approach they don't refuse them a license. That's because they aren't concerned about the children you might produce.

No, they understand that if the two old people are male/female, the structure of "those who may marry" (we are arguing about qualifications after all) isn't harmed at all. It's when two people of the same gender, or numbers more than two apply. That causes a rupture to the definition set for the benefit of children.

No, it doesn't, and marriage is not about children. You should be happy gay people want to get married, they raise a lot of children and two-parent households are more stable than one.

"marriage is not about children."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I crack up every time I see someone post that.

Tell me something, PMH, if marriage isn't about children, then why did the U.S.A. have an institution known as the "shotgun wedding?"

Because there was once a stigma against being unmarried and pregnant but the state had nothing to do with that. That was society just as society is now saying it's legal for gays to get married.

So marriage has nothing to do with rights? It's merely a benefit society bestows at its whim? If so, then why should we bestow it on gays?

 

[bripat9643]

The state's role in marriage is 100% about the children anticipated to be there. You will find this out soon enough as attorneys opposed to your position begin to really turn up the heat in arguments geared to protect untold millions of children well into each state's distant future..

Clearly that is false.

Wisconsin would not allow first cousins to marry- but only if they proved their infertility- if marriage is '100% about the children anticipated to be there'.

There is no connection at all between the 'incentives' of marriage' and couples having children.

That fact proves that marriage is about children. Why should the state care if you're fertile when you marry your first cousin? It would only care if producing children was the issue regarding marriage.

I've noticed that the apologists for so-called "gay marriage" aren't very good at this logic stuff.

Thank you. You are 100% correct. The idiots here cannot grasp any argument that does not follow their view. This is because they are stupid.

The stupid one is the one who can't grasp that his argument has been presented to the courts over and over again, and lost over and over again.

Only morons believe the courts are the final arbiters of truth.

 

[Seawytch]

I understand your position, it's just entirely wrong. The state hands out marriage licenses with no concern as to whether you will or even can have children. When two old people approach they don't refuse them a license. That's because they aren't concerned about the children you might produce.

No, they understand that if the two old people are male/female, the structure of "those who may marry" (we are arguing about qualifications after all) isn't harmed at all. It's when two people of the same gender, or numbers more than two apply. That causes a rupture to the definition set for the benefit of children.

No, it doesn't, and marriage is not about children. You should be happy gay people want to get married, they raise a lot of children and two-parent households are more stable than one.

"marriage is not about children."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I crack up every time I see someone post that.

Tell me something, PMH, if marriage isn't about children, then why did the U.S.A. have an institution known as the "shotgun wedding?"

Because there was once a stigma against being unmarried and pregnant but the state had nothing to do with that. That was society just as society is now saying it's legal for gays to get married.

So marriage has nothing to do with rights? It's merely a benefit society bestows at its whim? If so, then why should we bestow it on gays?

Ah, but that's where you get the whole thing wrong. A societal benefit doesn't have to be ascribed in order for a group to have access to equal rights. In fact, in order to deny those rights, you must ascribe a societal harm in allowing it. You can't which is why gays can now be civilly married in 35 out of 50 states.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, they understand that if the two old people are male/female, the structure of "those who may marry" (we are arguing about qualifications after all) isn't harmed at all. It's when two people of the same gender, or numbers more than two apply. That causes a rupture to the definition set for the benefit of children.

No, it doesn't, and marriage is not about children. You should be happy gay people want to get married, they raise a lot of children and two-parent households are more stable than one.

"marriage is not about children."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I crack up every time I see someone post that.

Tell me something, PMH, if marriage isn't about children, then why did the U.S.A. have an institution known as the "shotgun wedding?"

Because there was once a stigma against being unmarried and pregnant but the state had nothing to do with that. That was society just as society is now saying it's legal for gays to get married.

So marriage has nothing to do with rights? It's merely a benefit society bestows at its whim? If so, then why should we bestow it on gays?

Ah, but that's where you get the whole thing wrong. A societal benefit doesn't have to be ascribed in order for a group to have access to equal rights. In fact, in order to deny those rights, you must ascribe a societal harm in allowing it. You can't which is why gays can now be civilly married in 35 out of 50 states.

Gays have exactly the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straight people. Why is this difficult to understand? Is it because you pretend that a man is a woman and vice versa?

 

[Syriusly]

The state's role in marriage is 100% about the children anticipated to be there. You will find this out soon enough as attorneys opposed to your position begin to really turn up the heat in arguments geared to protect untold millions of children well into each state's distant future..

Clearly that is false.

Wisconsin would not allow first cousins to marry- but only if they proved their infertility- if marriage is '100% about the children anticipated to be there'.

There is no connection at all between the 'incentives' of marriage' and couples having children.

That fact proves that marriage is about children. Why should the state care if you're fertile when you marry your first cousin? It would only care if producing children was the issue regarding marriage.

I've noticed that the apologists for so-called "gay marriage" aren't very good at this logic stuff.

Thank you. You are 100% correct. The idiots here cannot grasp any argument that does not follow their view. This is because they are stupid.

The stupid one is the one who can't grasp that his argument has been presented to the courts over and over again, and lost over and over again.

Only morons believe the courts are the final arbiters of truth.

Only morons pretend that the courts rulings don't matter.

 

[Syriusly]

No, it doesn't, and marriage is not about children. You should be happy gay people want to get married, they raise a lot of children and two-parent households are more stable than one.

"marriage is not about children."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I crack up every time I see someone post that.

Tell me something, PMH, if marriage isn't about children, then why did the U.S.A. have an institution known as the "shotgun wedding?"

Because there was once a stigma against being unmarried and pregnant but the state had nothing to do with that. That was society just as society is now saying it's legal for gays to get married.

So marriage has nothing to do with rights? It's merely a benefit society bestows at its whim? If so, then why should we bestow it on gays?

Ah, but that's where you get the whole thing wrong. A societal benefit doesn't have to be ascribed in order for a group to have access to equal rights. In fact, in order to deny those rights, you must ascribe a societal harm in allowing it. You can't which is why gays can now be civilly married in 35 out of 50 states.

Gays have exactly the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straight people. Why is this difficult to understand? Is it because you pretend that a man is a woman and vice versa?

Now in 35 states, same gender couples can marry the person of the same gender that that they want to marry. Now in 35 states, same gender couples have the same rights as opposite gender couples.

It is very easy to understand.

 

[Syriusly]

I understand your position, it's just entirely wrong. The state hands out marriage licenses with no concern as to whether you will or even can have children. When two old people approach they don't refuse them a license. That's because they aren't concerned about the children you might produce.

No, they understand that if the two old people are male/female, the structure of "those who may marry" (we are arguing about qualifications after all) isn't harmed at all. It's when two people of the same gender, or numbers more than two apply. That causes a rupture to the definition set for the benefit of children.

No, it doesn't, and marriage is not about children. You should be happy gay people want to get married, they raise a lot of children and two-parent households are more stable than one.

"marriage is not about children."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I crack up every time I see someone post that.

Tell me something, PMH, if marriage isn't about children, then why did the U.S.A. have an institution known as the "shotgun wedding?"

Because there was once a stigma against being unmarried and pregnant but the state had nothing to do with that. That was society just as society is now saying it's legal for gays to get married.

So marriage has nothing to do with rights? It's merely a benefit society bestows at its whim? If so, then why should we bestow it on gays?

Marriage is a right in the United States.

Which is why same gender couples keep winning in court.

 

[Syriusly]

In those States where single gay parents can marry a person of the gender of their choice, there is no discrimination.

And in states where anyone is not allowed to marry someone of the same sex there is no discrimination either.

Of course there is.

Mere assertion fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Please tell me where there is discrimination where no one can marry a member of the same sex.

More like Rabbi drools.

As noted in Wisconsin's ruling:

The Court said nothing about state laws such as Wisconsin’s marriage amendment that require discrimination and the
Court did not suggest that such laws are immune from constitutional review.

In this case, the ultimate question under both provisions
is whether the state may discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of issuing
marriage licenses and recognizing marriages performed in other states

What's going to happen with Utah starts allowing polygamy again? Is the court going to rule other states have to respect these multiple marriages? According to you, they will.

Wow- how long you been holding onto that strawman?

This is what I said- your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem

As noted in Wisconsin's ruling:

The Court said nothing about state laws such as Wisconsin’s marriage amendment that require discrimination and the
Court did not suggest that such laws are immune from constitutional review.

In this case, the ultimate question under both provisions
is whether the state may discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of issuing
marriage licenses and recognizing marriages performed in other states

 

[The Rabbi]

No, they understand that if the two old people are male/female, the structure of "those who may marry" (we are arguing about qualifications after all) isn't harmed at all. It's when two people of the same gender, or numbers more than two apply. That causes a rupture to the definition set for the benefit of children.

No, it doesn't, and marriage is not about children. You should be happy gay people want to get married, they raise a lot of children and two-parent households are more stable than one.

"marriage is not about children."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I crack up every time I see someone post that.

Tell me something, PMH, if marriage isn't about children, then why did the U.S.A. have an institution known as the "shotgun wedding?"

Because there was once a stigma against being unmarried and pregnant but the state had nothing to do with that. That was society just as society is now saying it's legal for gays to get married.

So marriage has nothing to do with rights? It's merely a benefit society bestows at its whim? If so, then why should we bestow it on gays?

Marriage is a right in the United States.

Which is why same gender couples keep winning in court.

Except the 6th circuit where it lost.
Oops.
So far your arguments seem to be:
1) Lots of states have gay marriage (mostly imposed by judicial fiat over the will of the people
2) Gays are really straight people who like their own genitalia
3) Anyone who disagrees must be stupid.

Those arguments are fails, s0n. The Supreme Court is going to give you an attitude adjustment one day soon.

 

[Syriusly]

The state's role in marriage is 100% about the children anticipated to be there. You will find this out soon enough as attorneys opposed to your position begin to really turn up the heat in arguments geared to protect untold millions of children well into each state's distant future..

Clearly that is false.

Wisconsin would not allow first cousins to marry- but only if they proved their infertility- if marriage is '100% about the children anticipated to be there'.

There is no connection at all between the 'incentives' of marriage' and couples having children.

That fact proves that marriage is about children. Why should the state care if you're fertile when you marry your first cousin? It would only care if producing children was the issue regarding marriage.

I've noticed that the apologists for so-called "gay marriage" aren't very good at this logic stuff.

lol......if marriage is about children- why does Wisconsin permit first cousins to marry- but only if they can't have children?

Wisconsin could forbid first cousins from marrying- many states do. But instead Wisconsin says first cousins can marry- but only if prove that they cannot have children.

BUT- if those first cousins were of the same gender- Wisconsin would not allow them to marry at all- even though they could prove that they could not have children.

So once again- if 'marriage is about procreation- why does Wisconsin permit heterosexual first cousins who are infertile to marry- but not homosexual first cousins who are infertile?

And yes- you show that the homophobes don't have a clue what logic is.

 

[Syriusly]

No, it doesn't, and marriage is not about children. You should be happy gay people want to get married, they raise a lot of children and two-parent households are more stable than one.

"marriage is not about children."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I crack up every time I see someone post that.

Tell me something, PMH, if marriage isn't about children, then why did the U.S.A. have an institution known as the "shotgun wedding?"

Because there was once a stigma against being unmarried and pregnant but the state had nothing to do with that. That was society just as society is now saying it's legal for gays to get married.

So marriage has nothing to do with rights? It's merely a benefit society bestows at its whim? If so, then why should we bestow it on gays?

Marriage is a right in the United States.

Which is why same gender couples keep winning in court.

Except the 6th circuit where it lost.
Oops.
So far your arguments seem to be:
1) Lots of states have gay marriage (mostly imposed by judicial fiat over the will of the people
2) Gays are really straight people who like their own genitalia
3) Anyone who disagrees must be stupid.

Those arguments are fails, s0n. The Supreme Court is going to give you an attitude adjustment one day soon.

Your poor reading comprehension is once again not my problem. And neither is your ignorance.

 

[Syriusly]

I understand your position, it's just entirely wrong. The state hands out marriage licenses with no concern as to whether you will or even can have children. When two old people approach they don't refuse them a license. That's because they aren't concerned about the children you might produce.

No, they understand that if the two old people are male/female, the structure of "those who may marry" (we are arguing about qualifications after all) isn't harmed at all. It's when two people of the same gender, or numbers more than two apply. That causes a rupture to the definition set for the benefit of children.

No, it doesn't, and marriage is not about children. You should be happy gay people want to get married, they raise a lot of children and two-parent households are more stable than one.

"marriage is not about children."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I crack up every time I see someone post that.

Tell me something, PMH, if marriage isn't about children, then why did the U.S.A. have an institution known as the "shotgun wedding?"

If marriage is about children- why aren't parents required to get married?

Why are married parents allowed to divorce?

Why are infertile people allowed to marry?

Instead of asking about 'shotgun weddings' which is not an actual institution but instead a father forcing his daughter into marriage- ask why our marriage laws have no actual connection to procreation.

 

[The Rabbi]

"marriage is not about children."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I crack up every time I see someone post that.

Tell me something, PMH, if marriage isn't about children, then why did the U.S.A. have an institution known as the "shotgun wedding?"

Because there was once a stigma against being unmarried and pregnant but the state had nothing to do with that. That was society just as society is now saying it's legal for gays to get married.

So marriage has nothing to do with rights? It's merely a benefit society bestows at its whim? If so, then why should we bestow it on gays?

Marriage is a right in the United States.

Which is why same gender couples keep winning in court.

Except the 6th circuit where it lost.
Oops.
So far your arguments seem to be:
1) Lots of states have gay marriage (mostly imposed by judicial fiat over the will of the people
2) Gays are really straight people who like their own genitalia
3) Anyone who disagrees must be stupid.

Those arguments are fails, s0n. The Supreme Court is going to give you an attitude adjustment one day soon.

Your poor reading comprehension is once again not my problem. And neither is your ignorance.

No, I have it down just right. I've got you pegged. A gayboy drone.

 

[Syriusly]

Because there was once a stigma against being unmarried and pregnant but the state had nothing to do with that. That was society just as society is now saying it's legal for gays to get married.

So marriage has nothing to do with rights? It's merely a benefit society bestows at its whim? If so, then why should we bestow it on gays?

Marriage is a right in the United States.

Which is why same gender couples keep winning in court.

Except the 6th circuit where it lost.
Oops.
So far your arguments seem to be:
1) Lots of states have gay marriage (mostly imposed by judicial fiat over the will of the people
2) Gays are really straight people who like their own genitalia
3) Anyone who disagrees must be stupid.

Those arguments are fails, s0n. The Supreme Court is going to give you an attitude adjustment one day soon.

Your poor reading comprehension is once again not my problem. And neither is your ignorance.

No, I have it down just right. I've got you pegged. A gayboy drone.

LOL....the gay subtext in your post is just hilarious.

 

[Silhouette]

If marriage is about children- why aren't parents required to get married? 1

Why are married parents allowed to divorce? 2

Why are infertile people allowed to marry? 3

Instead of asking about 'shotgun weddings' which is not an actual institution but instead a father forcing his daughter into marriage- ask why our marriage laws have no actual connection to procreation. 4

1. The state is about marriage. And it is so for one reason, it balances the freedoms in the Constitution by enticing the proper arrangement for the raising of children by bestowing certain priveleges onto men/women who come together in the only possible arrangement where blood children to them will result. Marriage is a state incentive program, not a mandate. That's why it comes with certain rewards that non-qualifying applicants do not get. That's how incentives work.

2. See #1. The Constitution guarantees freedom. Each state is free to set its own standards for divorce. In cases where a man and a woman fight so much that it becomes harmful to the children in that home, the state allows divorce. Some states allow divorce for other reasons. But the child-protective interest of the state is involved in divorce as well.

3. Infertile men/women do not interfere with the basic and very limited qualifiers for marriage. They are a man and a woman. That does not tarnish the brass ring for the state incentive program/marriage perks. Their union, more than being infertile, could bring adopted kids into the fray where the children would see the daily interaction between "man" and 'woman" and find role modeling there and a sense of self reflection. We've seen what happens when sterile gay couples come together in this regard and his name is Thomas Lobel: Thomas Lobel had no adult male role model in his home. No man "as father". So his confusion is to be expected and anticipated.. Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum We would natually expect that any boy of a single mother would have struggles with coming to manhood. And in fact statistics bear this out.

4. The marriage laws have no connection to procreation because of Constitutional provisions for freedom and liberty of choice. The state, therefore, not being Red China or some other communist dictatorship that tells people what they will do down to the minutia of their most private lives, is limited only to being able to set incentives, brass rings for what it (We all) want for our children. Remember the liberal mantra "It takes a villiage"? Well, the villiage has decided to set incentives for its collective good via the formative years of children raised within its borders to only include a parenting situation for those children that is man/woman. The villiage does this for the Thomas Lobel reason and also because it wants the most likely scenario where the two blood parents of the children are in the home with them as parents. Many other situations exist for kids of course. But they are all inferior to the psychological benefits of blood parents. So the state picks the best scenario, the one most likely to result in well-rounded, mentally well children. And that scenario is (at least until the APA via CQR "audits" the Mt. Everest of data in support) man/woman.

The state has no way of knowing that men or women are sterile or even caring if they are. Children could wind up in any married home. They could even wind up in the home of two elderly people getting married for the first time as "grandkids". The important thing is that the basic structure that insures blood parent/blood offspring most of the time is preserved. Any man and woman marrying does not destroy that construct at all. Gays do. Because with 100% certainty, 100% of the time any children in that home will A. Be missing one of their blood parents and B. Be missing the complimentary gender-as-role-model. And that has already produced deleterious effects as we've seen with Thomas Lobel.

 

[Seawytch]

No, it doesn't, and marriage is not about children. You should be happy gay people want to get married, they raise a lot of children and two-parent households are more stable than one.

"marriage is not about children."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I crack up every time I see someone post that.

Tell me something, PMH, if marriage isn't about children, then why did the U.S.A. have an institution known as the "shotgun wedding?"

Because there was once a stigma against being unmarried and pregnant but the state had nothing to do with that. That was society just as society is now saying it's legal for gays to get married.

So marriage has nothing to do with rights? It's merely a benefit society bestows at its whim? If so, then why should we bestow it on gays?

Ah, but that's where you get the whole thing wrong. A societal benefit doesn't have to be ascribed in order for a group to have access to equal rights. In fact, in order to deny those rights, you must ascribe a societal harm in allowing it. You can't which is why gays can now be civilly married in 35 out of 50 states.

Gays have exactly the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straight people. Why is this difficult to understand? Is it because you pretend that a man is a woman and vice versa?

Gays can marry the non familial consenting adult of their choice in 35 out of 50 states...why would they marry a person they aren't in love with or attracted to?

I don't know what role playing games YOU play but both my partner and I are happy to be women. We're not attracted to men, why would either of us pretend to be one?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"marriage is not about children."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I crack up every time I see someone post that.

Tell me something, PMH, if marriage isn't about children, then why did the U.S.A. have an institution known as the "shotgun wedding?"

Because there was once a stigma against being unmarried and pregnant but the state had nothing to do with that. That was society just as society is now saying it's legal for gays to get married.

So marriage has nothing to do with rights? It's merely a benefit society bestows at its whim? If so, then why should we bestow it on gays?

Ah, but that's where you get the whole thing wrong. A societal benefit doesn't have to be ascribed in order for a group to have access to equal rights. In fact, in order to deny those rights, you must ascribe a societal harm in allowing it. You can't which is why gays can now be civilly married in 35 out of 50 states.

Gays have exactly the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straight people. Why is this difficult to understand? Is it because you pretend that a man is a woman and vice versa?

Gays can marry the non familial consenting adult of their choice in 35 out of 50 states...why would they marry a person they aren't in love with or attracted to?

I don't know what role playing games YOU play but both my partner and I are happy to be women. We're not attracted to men, why would either of us pretend to be one?

Like most children, he finds difference and change threatening. That's all.

 

[Silhouette]

Gays can marry the non familial consenting adult of their choice in 35 out of 50 states...why would they marry a person they aren't in love with or attracted to?

I don't know what role playing games YOU play but both my partner and I are happy to be women. We're not attracted to men, why would either of us pretend to be one?

Not legally they can't. And there are some activist federal judges that may find themselves soon on the impeachment chopping block. Have fun until January..

Read Judge Sutton's Opinion from the 6th circuit (link & excerpts on pages 12 & 13 here). He says that those courts that made up legal gay marriage (ie: illegal gay marriage) did so by improper procedure. And any verdict arrived at by improper procedure isn't worth the paper its written on. Judges below the SCOTUS are not allowed to overturn their rulings from underneath. All they can do is sustain a person's right to appeal by finding in favor of existing law. Properly, until this question falls before SCOTUS, no single state whatsoever has legal gay marriage unless they voted or enacted it in. No federal judge has authority to tell states if gay marriage is legal there or not. They may feel they have the right to interpret what is a civil right and what isn't. But Baker and Windsor prevent them from putting their interpretations "as law". As much as they may hate the law, their hatred doesn't allow them to overturn it from underneath. Only SCOTUS can do this and they haven't yet.

In fact, what SCOTUS has done most recently in Windsor 2013 is to reaffirm the strength of states' role in setting standards for marriage. The underling federal judges KNOW this and KNEW this at the time they acted in full defiance of that knowledge. Your activist judges attempting a coup on SCOTUS' supreme authority in this regard does not make gay marriage legal in 35 of 50 states. Dream on girlfriend..

You give me the number of states that voted in gay marriage and I'll give you the number of states gay marriage is legal in.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gays can marry the non familial consenting adult of their choice in 35 out of 50 states...why would they marry a person they aren't in love with or attracted to?

I don't know what role playing games YOU play but both my partner and I are happy to be women. We're not attracted to men, why would either of us pretend to be one?

Not legally they can't. And there are some activist federal judges that may find themselves soon on the impeachment chopping block. Have fun until January..

Read Judge Sutton's Opinion from the 6th circuit (link page 13 here). He says that those courts that made up legal gay marriage (ie: illegal gay marriage) did so by improper procedure. And any verdict arrived at by improper procedure isn't worth the paper its written on. Judges below the SCOTUS are not allowed to overturn their rulings from underneath. All they can do is sustain a person's right to appeal by finding in favor of existing law. Properly, until this question falls before SCOTUS, no single state whatsoever has legal gay marriage unless they voted or enacted it in. No federal judge has authority to tell states if gay marriage is legal there or not. They may feel they have the right to interpret what is a civil right and what isn't. But Baker and Windsor prevent them from putting their interpretations "as law". As much as they may hate the law, their hatred doesn't allow them to overturn it from underneath. Only SCOTUS can do this and they haven't yet.

Your homophobia did not carry the day. Gay marriage is legal in 2/3rds of the US. You've lost Sil and there's nothing you can do but move on. Try and be an adult for once and do so.

 

[Syriusly]

If marriage is about children- why aren't parents required to get married? 1

Why are married parents allowed to divorce? 2

Why are infertile people allowed to marry? 3

Instead of asking about 'shotgun weddings' which is not an actual institution but instead a father forcing his daughter into marriage- ask why our marriage laws have no actual connection to procreation. 4

1. The state is about marriage. And it is so for one reason, it balances the freedoms in the Constitution by enticing the proper arrangement for the raising of children by bestowing certain priveleges onto men/women who come together in the only possible arrangement where blood children to them will result. Marriage is a state incentive program, not a mandate. That's why it comes with certain rewards that non-qualifying applicants do not get. That's how incentives work.

2. See #1. The Constitution guarantees freedom. Each state is free to set its own standards for divorce. In cases where a man and a woman fight so much that it becomes harmful to the children in that home, the state allows divorce. Some states allow divorce for other reasons. But the child-protective interest of the state is involved in divorce as well.

3. Infertile men/women do not interfere with the basic and very limited qualifiers for marriage. They are a man and a woman. That does not tarnish the brass ring for the state incentive program/marriage perks. Their union, more than being infertile, could bring adopted kids into the fray where the children would see the daily interaction between "man" and 'woman" and find role modeling there and a sense of self reflection. We've seen what happens when sterile gay couples come together in this regard and his name is Thomas Lobel: Thomas Lobel had no adult male role model in his home. No man "as father". So his confusion is to be expected and anticipated.. Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum We would natually expect that any boy of a single mother would have struggles with coming to manhood. And in fact statistics bear this out.

4. The marriage laws have no connection to procreation because of Constitutional provisions for freedom and liberty of choice. The state, therefore, not being Red China or some other communist dictatorship that tells people what they will do down to the minutia of their most private lives, is limited only to being able to set incentives, brass rings for what it (We all) want for our children. Remember the liberal mantra "It takes a villiage"? Well, the villiage has decided to set incentives for its collective good via the formative years of children raised within its borders to only include a parenting situation for those children that is man/woman. The villiage does this for the Thomas Lobel reason and also because it wants the most likely scenario where the two blood parents of the children are in the home with them as parents. Many other situations exist for kids of course. But they are all inferior to the psychological benefits of blood parents. So the state picks the best scenario, the one most likely to result in well-rounded, mentally well children. And that scenario is (at least until the APA via CQR "audits" the Mt. Everest of data in support) man/woman.

The state has no way of knowing that men or women are sterile or even caring if they are. Children could wind up in any married home. They could even wind up in the home of two elderly people getting married for the first time as "grandkids". The important thing is that the basic structure that insures blood parent/blood offspring most of the time is preserved. Any man and woman marrying does not destroy that construct at all. Gays do. Because with 100% certainty, 100% of the time any children in that home will A. Be missing one of their blood parents and B. Be missing the complimentary gender-as-role-model. And that has already produced deleterious effects as we've seen with Thomas Lobel.

Actually- I like how you organized this- lets continue with this

1- why aren't parents required to get married?- your answer is "Marriage is a state incentive program, not a mandate"- okay then the question is does the State's marriage incentive program actually do what you claim it does?

2 Why are married parents allowed to divorce? You have no cohesive answer- you claim that the Constitution is about freedom- but then claim that State's can regulate divorce- which State's can. IF marriage is about ensuring that children have their 'blood parents' raising them- why does the State allow for divorce? Divorce of married parents directly contradicts the goal- and States do not have to allow divorce.

3 Why are infertile people allowed to marry? Your answer Infertile men/women do not interfere with the basic and very limited qualifiers for marriage. They are a man and a woman. - and that is a circular argument- an infertile couple that is a man and a woman is allowed to marry- an infertile couple that is a man and a man is not allowed to marry. Both have exactly the same relationship to 'blood children' and marriage. What you have displayed here is just bigotry towards same gender couples- rationalizing why same gender couples cannot marry when they have the exact same procreation potential as opposite gender couples.

4 The state has no way of knowing that men or women are sterile or even caring if they are- well the State absolutely has way of knowing whether men or women are sterile- men who have no testicles are sterile, woman with no ovaries will not have children- women in their 80's will not be having children.

As I have pointed out Wisconsin requires first cousins to prove that they are sterile before they will allow them to marry- so clearly requiring proof of fertility- or lack of fertility is something a state can do- and has an interest in doing- IF marriage was about 'blood children'.

But marriage is about much, much more than just children- and that is why most marriage laws are about issues exclusive of children. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.