Idea For New Constitutional Amendment: "The Child Consideration Amendment"

[paddymurphy]

The children argument has been the one most substantial argument against legal homo marriage. It is exactly why the homonazi agenda avoided it and focused on religion instead. Now it's time for the children argument to be made.

Read the Obergefell ruling. It addresses children head on.

You've already lost this argument too.

Give me a link, I'll read it and shoot it down.

Typically lazy right winger. Engages in a debate about a topic without ever bothering to educate himself on it. You will need to read more than the ruling; you will need to read the transcripts of the more than dozen trials where there was actual evidence presented. In none of those cases could your side present credible evidence that having gay parents had any detrimental effect on kids. Frankly, the only harm is that they run the risk of being exposed to hateful pricks like you who would take their hatred of gay people out of their children.

I'm fully aware of the decision. It made no point about the prevalence of fatherlessness and how homo marriage could only exacerbate that problem. You need to educate yourself, lazy.

You asked for a link. Have you read is since then? The prevalence of fatherlessness would be reduced by children adopted by two men. If one father is good, two would be great. It is so apparent from your posts that your wife had the good sense to take your kids as far away from you as possible. Right?

 

[Silhouette]

The need is that all children should be protected but the Cult of Si is only a few children should be protected while ignoring all of the rest. Her amendment will not remedy the problem.

"Her". This hatemongering asshole is a woman? Perhaps even a mother? God that is awful. How could a woman be so hateful towards children; to want to take them from their parents because she objects to their orientation?

The only parents to a child are a mother and father. Two gays is an artificial construct that deprives the voteless children of a mother and a father in marriage as a tax-subsidized institution that the majority disapproves of.

Children's needs first. Adult's wants second. Always in that order. That's what the Amendment needs to say. And I dare democrats to reject it publicly. ...especially next year... Very telling that 3 posters here voted that children's needs don't trump adult's wants. I wouldn't adopt a child to that home...EVER...

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

To be fair, one time he made an anti-black thread. So he does have at least one other interest.

Do you have a link to a thread where you accuse me of being a racist? If not, be prepared to be reported.

Reported to who? Is there a place I can report assholes who lie here; who make up things to support their asinine views? I would have be cutting and pasting your nonsense for hours if there were such a place.

The children argument has been the one most substantial argument against legal homo marriage. It is exactly why the homonazi agenda avoided it and focused on religion instead. Now it's time for the children argument to be made.

Now? That was the argument that was made in every Court case about gay marriage. They made the argument, they simply were unable to offer any evidence to support the argument. In fact, the evidence presented demonstrated just the opposite; that gay couples are actually a little better at parenting than straight couples. Of course, gay couples actually had to want the children they have. Unlike many straight couples, they did not become parents by accident.

No argument was made to that effect. Only from a religious standpoint. Nowhere did anyone point to the correlation between the prevalence of a missing gender parent and social demise. Nowhere. It stayed in the religious realm.

First you ask for a link cause you did not bother to read it now you claim that no such argument was made, that only a religious one was made. ******* moron. No religious argument was made in Oberfell because the lawyers for the state, unlike cretins like you, understand that trying to justify a law on the basis of religion is an absolute loser. They made the argument based on the claim that children need two parents and that allowing gay people to marry will somehow cause straight people to not want to marry. Other cases involved lengthy trials where experts testified for both sides with the one huge difference being that the "experts" for those opposed to gay marriage were utterly destroyed on the witness stand. They had no data to back up their opinions. This happened in not one, but several trials. It happened in the challenge to Proposition 8 case in California. I read the transcript. The anti gay marriage expert ended up agreeing that there really was no harm to the children of a gay couple.

Again, they omitted the empirical reality that the prevalence of households devoid of a gender parent correlate with social demise. I can't help it if an incomplete argument was presented. I'm informing you right now of what you are apparently unaware.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

SCOTUS was ruling on adults and not children.

Sil cannot attack homosexual marriages without attacking single parent households.

Those are a mere two of several dozen flaws in the Sil Cult.

What's wrong with attacking contrived single parent households? It plays into the same logic that betrays the well being of children. That's what this is about. The priority of protecting those who need protection the most; children.

The contrived two parent household is more dangerous. Two losers who cannot take care of themselves trying to raise children while constantly battling one another should not have children. Take those poor kids and give them to any couple or an person, gay, straight or asexual who will love them and raise them.

There is nothing contrived about a mother and a father procreating.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The children argument has been the one most substantial argument against legal homo marriage. It is exactly why the homonazi agenda avoided it and focused on religion instead. Now it's time for the children argument to be made.

Read the Obergefell ruling. It addresses children head on.

You've already lost this argument too.

Give me a link, I'll read it and shoot it down.

Typically lazy right winger. Engages in a debate about a topic without ever bothering to educate himself on it. You will need to read more than the ruling; you will need to read the transcripts of the more than dozen trials where there was actual evidence presented. In none of those cases could your side present credible evidence that having gay parents had any detrimental effect on kids. Frankly, the only harm is that they run the risk of being exposed to hateful pricks like you who would take their hatred of gay people out of their children.

I'm fully aware of the decision. It made no point about the prevalence of fatherlessness and how homo marriage could only exacerbate that problem. You need to educate yourself, lazy.

You asked for a link. Have you read is since then? The prevalence of fatherlessness would be reduced by children adopted by two men. If one father is good, two would be great. It is so apparent from your posts that your wife had the good sense to take your kids as far away from you as possible. Right?

Two fathers would leave a child devoid of a mother. It's both genders that need to be represented.
Why must you go gutter when you're presented with an argument you can't refute?

 

[paddymurphy]

The children argument has been the one most substantial argument against legal homo marriage. It is exactly why the homonazi agenda avoided it and focused on religion instead. Now it's time for the children argument to be made.

This is from the Brief of the State of Michigan explaining their argument:

2. The state’s primary interest in defining marriage as between opposite-sex couples is to encourage individuals with the inherent capacity to bear children to enter a union that supports child rearing. Michigan’s marriage laws have nothing to do with animus toward anyone, and it would take a radical alteration of this Court’s constitutional doctrines to hold that the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage.

4.a. Michigan’s marriage laws satisfy rational-basis review. The petitioners concede that Michigan pursues a legitimate interest and reasonably promotes that interest by acknowledging that marriage brings stability to families and promotes positive child outcomes. Pet. Br. 22, 37. The fact that Michigan’s marriage definition may be under- or overinclusive is no ground to invalidate it. It is not Michigan’s burden to prove that excluding a group will promote a law’s purpose. To the contrary, when “the inclusion of one group promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of other groups would not, we cannot say that the statute’s classification of beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries is invidiously discriminatory.” Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 383 (1974). Responding to the reality that a man and a woman are generally able to create new life neither discriminates nor entails animus at all.

So, tell us again how the argument that gay marriage is not good for children was not made to the Court.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The children argument has been the one most substantial argument against legal homo marriage. It is exactly why the homonazi agenda avoided it and focused on religion instead. Now it's time for the children argument to be made.

This is from the Brief of the State of Michigan explaining their argument:

2. The state’s primary interest in defining marriage as between opposite-sex couples is to encourage individuals with the inherent capacity to bear children to enter a union that supports child rearing. Michigan’s marriage laws have nothing to do with animus toward anyone, and it would take a radical alteration of this Court’s constitutional doctrines to hold that the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage.

4.a. Michigan’s marriage laws satisfy rational-basis review. The petitioners concede that Michigan pursues a legitimate interest and reasonably promotes that interest by acknowledging that marriage brings stability to families and promotes positive child outcomes. Pet. Br. 22, 37. The fact that Michigan’s marriage definition may be under- or overinclusive is no ground to invalidate it. It is not Michigan’s burden to prove that excluding a group will promote a law’s purpose. To the contrary, when “the inclusion of one group promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of other groups would not, we cannot say that the statute’s classification of beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries is invidiously discriminatory.” Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 383 (1974). Responding to the reality that a man and a woman are generally able to create new life neither discriminates nor entails animus at all.

So, tell us again how the argument that gay marriage is not good for children was not made to the Court.

There is no mention there of the direct correlation between the prevalence of unstructured (non-mom-and-dad) families and social demise.

 

[paddymurphy]

The children argument has been the one most substantial argument against legal homo marriage. It is exactly why the homonazi agenda avoided it and focused on religion instead. Now it's time for the children argument to be made.

Here are parts of the testimony of the expert called by those defendign prop 8 in california:

“The studies show that adoptive parents, because of the rigorous screening process that they undertake before becoming adoptive parents, actually on some outcomes outstrip the biological parents in terms of providing protective care for their children.”

“Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion.”

“I believe that adopting same-sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children.”

“By increasing the number of married couples who might be interested in adoption and foster care, same-sex marriage might well lead to fewer children growing up in state institutions and more growing up in loving adoptive and foster families.”

“Because marriage is a wealth-creating institution, extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably increase wealth accumulation and lead to higher living standards for these couples as well as help reduce welfare costs (by promoting family economic self-sufficiency) and decrease economic inequality.”

“Gay marriage might contribute over time to a decline in anti-gay prejudice as well as, more specifically, a reduction in anti-gay hate crimes.”

“Same-sex marriage would likely contribute to more stability and to longer-lasting relationships for committed same-sex couples.”

“Gay marriage would extend a wide range of the natural and practical benefits of marriage to many lesbian and gay couples and their children.”

“Extending the right to marry to same-sex couples would probably mean that a higher proportion of gays and lesbians would choose to enter into committed relationships.”
There is your "its all about the children" evidence from your side. This guy was honest. You? Clearly not.

 

[paddymurphy]

Read the Obergefell ruling. It addresses children head on.

You've already lost this argument too.

Give me a link, I'll read it and shoot it down.

Typically lazy right winger. Engages in a debate about a topic without ever bothering to educate himself on it. You will need to read more than the ruling; you will need to read the transcripts of the more than dozen trials where there was actual evidence presented. In none of those cases could your side present credible evidence that having gay parents had any detrimental effect on kids. Frankly, the only harm is that they run the risk of being exposed to hateful pricks like you who would take their hatred of gay people out of their children.

I'm fully aware of the decision. It made no point about the prevalence of fatherlessness and how homo marriage could only exacerbate that problem. You need to educate yourself, lazy.

You asked for a link. Have you read is since then? The prevalence of fatherlessness would be reduced by children adopted by two men. If one father is good, two would be great. It is so apparent from your posts that your wife had the good sense to take your kids as far away from you as possible. Right?

Two fathers would leave a child devoid of a mother. It's both genders that need to be represented.
Why must you go gutter when you're presented with an argument you can't refute?

Go gutter? You are on here claiming that gay people cannot be good parents. I am responding that they can and that bigoted assholes like you cannot. Children need love and support. That can come from a straight couple, like my wife and I. it can come from two women like two friends of ours gave to their three wonderful kids, all now grown, successful and straight. It can come from a single mother or a single father; single because of a death or because the other parent was an asshole. It an come from grandparents, aunts, uncles and foster parents. The least relevant factor in whether one is a good parent or a lousy one is sexual orientation.

 

[paddymurphy]

The children argument has been the one most substantial argument against legal homo marriage. It is exactly why the homonazi agenda avoided it and focused on religion instead. Now it's time for the children argument to be made.

This is from the Brief of the State of Michigan explaining their argument:

2. The state’s primary interest in defining marriage as between opposite-sex couples is to encourage individuals with the inherent capacity to bear children to enter a union that supports child rearing. Michigan’s marriage laws have nothing to do with animus toward anyone, and it would take a radical alteration of this Court’s constitutional doctrines to hold that the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage.

4.a. Michigan’s marriage laws satisfy rational-basis review. The petitioners concede that Michigan pursues a legitimate interest and reasonably promotes that interest by acknowledging that marriage brings stability to families and promotes positive child outcomes. Pet. Br. 22, 37. The fact that Michigan’s marriage definition may be under- or overinclusive is no ground to invalidate it. It is not Michigan’s burden to prove that excluding a group will promote a law’s purpose. To the contrary, when “the inclusion of one group promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of other groups would not, we cannot say that the statute’s classification of beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries is invidiously discriminatory.” Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 383 (1974). Responding to the reality that a man and a woman are generally able to create new life neither discriminates nor entails animus at all.

So, tell us again how the argument that gay marriage is not good for children was not made to the Court.

There is no mention there of the direct correlation between the prevalence of unstructured (non-mom-and-dad) families and social demise.

Cause there is none.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shall we kill people that get divorced?

No, if the divorce is for the best interest of the children...if the parents' hatred for each other affects the sanctity of the home, the divorce is granted.. The gold standard is not violated. This is simple stuff. The children's wellbeing always wins. Always. That's how you put anything, including divorce upon the scales.

What's the choice between a gay couple raising children vs. a childhood in foster care?

That is not the question. A child in foster care should be protected by the law from being handed over to a couple of sodomites. This is about Parents and their children and changing the constitution to transfer rights of the parent over to rights of the Child.

So Jeremiah- you want to prevent these children from being fostered or adopted by these men?

The couple contacted Credo Care, an organisation that specialises in disability foster placements. Shortly after, Armand arrived.

"He arrived in March, 10 years ago," explains David. Born in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, six-year-old Armand had lived in hospital for most of his short life. A wheelchair user, he has severe learning disabilities, a tracheotomy and is fed through a Peg [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy].

"He came to us when he was six and was the first one to arrive. Four months later, we had an emergency phone call, asking us if we'd take a boy from Derby. Luke arrived that afternoon. He was 12 and had Duchenne muscular dystrophy. In those days he could shuffle around, but now, he's totally … well, the disease has got hold of his body. He's 22 now. He's a great lad, he really is. He's brilliant."

A couple of months after Luke joined the household, the couple were asked to take Steven, who was five and had cerebral palsy and learning difficulties. They have looked after the three boys ever since. Two years ago, they adopted a little girl. Sadly, she wasn't well and didn't live long.

"We had 17 wonderful months," says David. "She was three when she died. It was just 10 days after the adoption was completed, and it was very sudden, so … we haven't gone down that road again," he adds, choosing his words carefully to describe what must have been a devastating experience.

The latest addition to the household arrived earlier this year. Three-year-old Emma is immobile, has limited vision and breathes via a tracheotomy, but appears to be thriving in their care.

"She's making huge progress," says Andrew. "She was in a place in Surrey, where she had lots of different people working with her. She couldn't make connections with people. Now she just has two voices that she hears all the time – the same people caring for her. And we have the luxury of spending time with her."

Talking to David and Andrew, I am struck by how matter-of-factly they talk about their family setup. They clearly derive great joy and reward from their role as carers, speaking about each child with affection and deep pride. To an unexperienced outsider, the idea of caring full-time for a child with severe learning difficulties – who may not be expected to live until adulthood – probably falls into the category of every parent's worst nightmare. However, the couple are a testament to the fact that it doesn't have to be regarded that way.

Gay foster carers I love every minute of it Life and style The Guardian

Yes.

You are wrong in the eyes of God.

 

[paddymurphy]

The need is that all children should be protected but the Cult of Si is only a few children should be protected while ignoring all of the rest. Her amendment will not remedy the problem.

"Her". This hatemongering asshole is a woman? Perhaps even a mother? God that is awful. How could a woman be so hateful towards children; to want to take them from their parents because she objects to their orientation?

The only parents to a child are a mother and father. Two gays is an artificial construct that deprives the voteless children of a mother and a father in marriage as a tax-subsidized institution that the majority disapproves of.

Children's needs first. Adult's wants second. Always in that order. That's what the Amendment needs to say. And I dare democrats to reject it publicly. ...especially next year... Very telling that 3 posters here voted that children's needs don't trump adult's wants. I wouldn't adopt a child to that home...EVER...

And the need of you, presumably an adult, to impose your ******* hate on others should be second to the need of children to have loving parents, however they happen to have sex.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The children argument has been the one most substantial argument against legal homo marriage. It is exactly why the homonazi agenda avoided it and focused on religion instead. Now it's time for the children argument to be made.

Here are parts of the testimony of the expert called by those defendign prop 8 in california:

“The studies show that adoptive parents, because of the rigorous screening process that they undertake before becoming adoptive parents, actually on some outcomes outstrip the biological parents in terms of providing protective care for their children.”

“Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion.”

“I believe that adopting same-sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children.”

“By increasing the number of married couples who might be interested in adoption and foster care, same-sex marriage might well lead to fewer children growing up in state institutions and more growing up in loving adoptive and foster families.”

“Because marriage is a wealth-creating institution, extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably increase wealth accumulation and lead to higher living standards for these couples as well as help reduce welfare costs (by promoting family economic self-sufficiency) and decrease economic inequality.”

“Gay marriage might contribute over time to a decline in anti-gay prejudice as well as, more specifically, a reduction in anti-gay hate crimes.”

“Same-sex marriage would likely contribute to more stability and to longer-lasting relationships for committed same-sex couples.”

“Gay marriage would extend a wide range of the natural and practical benefits of marriage to many lesbian and gay couples and their children.”

“Extending the right to marry to same-sex couples would probably mean that a higher proportion of gays and lesbians would choose to enter into committed relationships.”
There is your "its all about the children" evidence from your side. This guy was honest. You? Clearly not.

The unstructured family problems transcend economics. I live in a region with a median income of $73k and a predominance of unstructured families. We have the second worst schools and second highest crime rate.
You are still relying on the anecdotal and anomalous.
Again, the argument regarding the prevalence of unstructured families has not been made. The closest thing to it is a semantic interpretation of adoption rights.
Not to mention the rudeness and cruelty of contriving family situations where a child is intentionally denied the opportunity to the very natural, innate right to be raised by his actual parents.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Give me a link, I'll read it and shoot it down.

Typically lazy right winger. Engages in a debate about a topic without ever bothering to educate himself on it. You will need to read more than the ruling; you will need to read the transcripts of the more than dozen trials where there was actual evidence presented. In none of those cases could your side present credible evidence that having gay parents had any detrimental effect on kids. Frankly, the only harm is that they run the risk of being exposed to hateful pricks like you who would take their hatred of gay people out of their children.

I'm fully aware of the decision. It made no point about the prevalence of fatherlessness and how homo marriage could only exacerbate that problem. You need to educate yourself, lazy.

You asked for a link. Have you read is since then? The prevalence of fatherlessness would be reduced by children adopted by two men. If one father is good, two would be great. It is so apparent from your posts that your wife had the good sense to take your kids as far away from you as possible. Right?

Two fathers would leave a child devoid of a mother. It's both genders that need to be represented.
Why must you go gutter when you're presented with an argument you can't refute?

Go gutter? You are on here claiming that gay people cannot be good parents. I am responding that they can and that bigoted assholes like you cannot. Children need love and support. That can come from a straight couple, like my wife and I. it can come from two women like two friends of ours gave to their three wonderful kids, all now grown, successful and straight. It can come from a single mother or a single father; single because of a death or because the other parent was an asshole. It an come from grandparents, aunts, uncles and foster parents. The least relevant factor in whether one is a good parent or a lousy one is sexual orientation.

You went gutter -- twice now. And I never said anything about homos not being able to be good parents. There have been plenty of homos who lived in and raised children in hetero situations and provided their children with the two-gender parenting situation they need.
This isn't about the individual ability of a homo to provide love and resources. It's about the recent phenomenon of the prevalence of lack of family structure, the problems that has created and contrived homo parenting adding to that problem.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The children argument has been the one most substantial argument against legal homo marriage. It is exactly why the homonazi agenda avoided it and focused on religion instead. Now it's time for the children argument to be made.

This is from the Brief of the State of Michigan explaining their argument:

2. The state’s primary interest in defining marriage as between opposite-sex couples is to encourage individuals with the inherent capacity to bear children to enter a union that supports child rearing. Michigan’s marriage laws have nothing to do with animus toward anyone, and it would take a radical alteration of this Court’s constitutional doctrines to hold that the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage.

4.a. Michigan’s marriage laws satisfy rational-basis review. The petitioners concede that Michigan pursues a legitimate interest and reasonably promotes that interest by acknowledging that marriage brings stability to families and promotes positive child outcomes. Pet. Br. 22, 37. The fact that Michigan’s marriage definition may be under- or overinclusive is no ground to invalidate it. It is not Michigan’s burden to prove that excluding a group will promote a law’s purpose. To the contrary, when “the inclusion of one group promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of other groups would not, we cannot say that the statute’s classification of beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries is invidiously discriminatory.” Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 383 (1974). Responding to the reality that a man and a woman are generally able to create new life neither discriminates nor entails animus at all.

So, tell us again how the argument that gay marriage is not good for children was not made to the Court.

There is no mention there of the direct correlation between the prevalence of unstructured (non-mom-and-dad) families and social demise.

Cause there is none.

Only to those who are insulated from the reality.

 

[paddymurphy]

The children argument has been the one most substantial argument against legal homo marriage. It is exactly why the homonazi agenda avoided it and focused on religion instead. Now it's time for the children argument to be made.

Here are parts of the testimony of the expert called by those defendign prop 8 in california:

“The studies show that adoptive parents, because of the rigorous screening process that they undertake before becoming adoptive parents, actually on some outcomes outstrip the biological parents in terms of providing protective care for their children.”

“Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion.”

“I believe that adopting same-sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children.”

“By increasing the number of married couples who might be interested in adoption and foster care, same-sex marriage might well lead to fewer children growing up in state institutions and more growing up in loving adoptive and foster families.”

“Because marriage is a wealth-creating institution, extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably increase wealth accumulation and lead to higher living standards for these couples as well as help reduce welfare costs (by promoting family economic self-sufficiency) and decrease economic inequality.”

“Gay marriage might contribute over time to a decline in anti-gay prejudice as well as, more specifically, a reduction in anti-gay hate crimes.”

“Same-sex marriage would likely contribute to more stability and to longer-lasting relationships for committed same-sex couples.”

“Gay marriage would extend a wide range of the natural and practical benefits of marriage to many lesbian and gay couples and their children.”

“Extending the right to marry to same-sex couples would probably mean that a higher proportion of gays and lesbians would choose to enter into committed relationships.”
There is your "its all about the children" evidence from your side. This guy was honest. You? Clearly not.

The unstructured family problems transcend economics. I live in a region with a median income of $73k and a predominance of unstructured families. We have the second worst schools and second highest crime rate.
You are still relying on the anecdotal and anomalous.
Again, the argument regarding the prevalence of unstructured families has not been made. The closest thing to it is a semantic interpretation of adoption rights.
Not to mention the rudeness and cruelty of contriving family situations where a child is intentionally denied the opportunity to the very natural, innate right to be raised by his actual parents.

You know, getting out the thesaurus to use big words does not hide your stupidity. The testimony in Court in these case was not anecdotal. It was based on data studied by those who study the family dynamic. In many gay households, one of the parents is the natural parent. The other natural parent is often times a test tube. You seem to think that biology makes a parent. Biology can create the child, but a parent involves more than simply sharing DNA. Spend a week in family or juvenile court and observe the wonderful parenting skills of straight Americans. The children that gay couples adopt are not ******* stolen. They have been discarded by the straight couples that created them. Or, maybe they are the children of children who understand that being 16 and pregnant is a lot different than that idiotic TV show. When they are adopted, they become wanted. When there are two loving parent ready to take one of these discarded children into their home, to raise them as if they were their biological children and to give them the love that someone like you would simply be incapable of giving them, why should hate prevent that from happening?

 

[paddymurphy]

The children argument has been the one most substantial argument against legal homo marriage. It is exactly why the homonazi agenda avoided it and focused on religion instead. Now it's time for the children argument to be made.

This is from the Brief of the State of Michigan explaining their argument:

2. The state’s primary interest in defining marriage as between opposite-sex couples is to encourage individuals with the inherent capacity to bear children to enter a union that supports child rearing. Michigan’s marriage laws have nothing to do with animus toward anyone, and it would take a radical alteration of this Court’s constitutional doctrines to hold that the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage.

4.a. Michigan’s marriage laws satisfy rational-basis review. The petitioners concede that Michigan pursues a legitimate interest and reasonably promotes that interest by acknowledging that marriage brings stability to families and promotes positive child outcomes. Pet. Br. 22, 37. The fact that Michigan’s marriage definition may be under- or overinclusive is no ground to invalidate it. It is not Michigan’s burden to prove that excluding a group will promote a law’s purpose. To the contrary, when “the inclusion of one group promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of other groups would not, we cannot say that the statute’s classification of beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries is invidiously discriminatory.” Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 383 (1974). Responding to the reality that a man and a woman are generally able to create new life neither discriminates nor entails animus at all.

So, tell us again how the argument that gay marriage is not good for children was not made to the Court.

There is no mention there of the direct correlation between the prevalence of unstructured (non-mom-and-dad) families and social demise.

Cause there is none.

Only to those who are insulated from the reality.

Your head is to far up you ass to have any familiarity with reality.

 

[paddymurphy]

Typically lazy right winger. Engages in a debate about a topic without ever bothering to educate himself on it. You will need to read more than the ruling; you will need to read the transcripts of the more than dozen trials where there was actual evidence presented. In none of those cases could your side present credible evidence that having gay parents had any detrimental effect on kids. Frankly, the only harm is that they run the risk of being exposed to hateful pricks like you who would take their hatred of gay people out of their children.

I'm fully aware of the decision. It made no point about the prevalence of fatherlessness and how homo marriage could only exacerbate that problem. You need to educate yourself, lazy.

You asked for a link. Have you read is since then? The prevalence of fatherlessness would be reduced by children adopted by two men. If one father is good, two would be great. It is so apparent from your posts that your wife had the good sense to take your kids as far away from you as possible. Right?

Two fathers would leave a child devoid of a mother. It's both genders that need to be represented.
Why must you go gutter when you're presented with an argument you can't refute?

Go gutter? You are on here claiming that gay people cannot be good parents. I am responding that they can and that bigoted assholes like you cannot. Children need love and support. That can come from a straight couple, like my wife and I. it can come from two women like two friends of ours gave to their three wonderful kids, all now grown, successful and straight. It can come from a single mother or a single father; single because of a death or because the other parent was an asshole. It an come from grandparents, aunts, uncles and foster parents. The least relevant factor in whether one is a good parent or a lousy one is sexual orientation.

You went gutter -- twice now. And I never said anything about homos not being able to be good parents. There have been plenty of homos who lived in and raised children in hetero situations and provided their children with the two-gender parenting situation they need.
This isn't about the individual ability of a homo to provide love and resources. It's about the recent phenomenon of the prevalence of lack of family structure, the problems that has created and contrived homo parenting adding to that problem.

Buddy, the only way to debate you is to get down in your gutter. Your are a gutter dwelling, lying piece of shit. They are not homos, you disgusting prick. They are better human beings than you or anyone who would have the misfortune of being your offspring.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The children argument has been the one most substantial argument against legal homo marriage. It is exactly why the homonazi agenda avoided it and focused on religion instead. Now it's time for the children argument to be made.

Here are parts of the testimony of the expert called by those defendign prop 8 in california:

“The studies show that adoptive parents, because of the rigorous screening process that they undertake before becoming adoptive parents, actually on some outcomes outstrip the biological parents in terms of providing protective care for their children.”

“Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion.”

“I believe that adopting same-sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children.”

“By increasing the number of married couples who might be interested in adoption and foster care, same-sex marriage might well lead to fewer children growing up in state institutions and more growing up in loving adoptive and foster families.”

“Because marriage is a wealth-creating institution, extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably increase wealth accumulation and lead to higher living standards for these couples as well as help reduce welfare costs (by promoting family economic self-sufficiency) and decrease economic inequality.”

“Gay marriage might contribute over time to a decline in anti-gay prejudice as well as, more specifically, a reduction in anti-gay hate crimes.”

“Same-sex marriage would likely contribute to more stability and to longer-lasting relationships for committed same-sex couples.”

“Gay marriage would extend a wide range of the natural and practical benefits of marriage to many lesbian and gay couples and their children.”

“Extending the right to marry to same-sex couples would probably mean that a higher proportion of gays and lesbians would choose to enter into committed relationships.”
There is your "its all about the children" evidence from your side. This guy was honest. You? Clearly not.

The unstructured family problems transcend economics. I live in a region with a median income of $73k and a predominance of unstructured families. We have the second worst schools and second highest crime rate.
You are still relying on the anecdotal and anomalous.
Again, the argument regarding the prevalence of unstructured families has not been made. The closest thing to it is a semantic interpretation of adoption rights.
Not to mention the rudeness and cruelty of contriving family situations where a child is intentionally denied the opportunity to the very natural, innate right to be raised by his actual parents.

You know, getting out the thesaurus to use big words does not hide your stupidity. The testimony in Court in these case was not anecdotal. It was based on data studied by those who study the family dynamic. In many gay households, one of the parents is the natural parent. The other natural parent is often times a test tube. You seem to think that biology makes a parent. Biology can create the child, but a parent involves more than simply sharing DNA. Spend a week in family or juvenile court and observe the wonderful parenting skills of straight Americans. The children that gay couples adopt are not ******* stolen. They have been discarded by the straight couples that created them. Or, maybe they are the children of children who understand that being 16 and pregnant is a lot different than that idiotic TV show. When they are adopted, they become wanted. When there are two loving parent ready to take one of these discarded children into their home, to raise them as if they were their biological children and to give them the love that someone like you would simply be incapable of giving them, why should hate prevent that from happening?

Again, you went gutter and anecdotal. Respond to my points about entire communities lacking family structure and then demonstrate how homo contrivance adoptions don't contribute to that.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The children argument has been the one most substantial argument against legal homo marriage. It is exactly why the homonazi agenda avoided it and focused on religion instead. Now it's time for the children argument to be made.

This is from the Brief of the State of Michigan explaining their argument:

2. The state’s primary interest in defining marriage as between opposite-sex couples is to encourage individuals with the inherent capacity to bear children to enter a union that supports child rearing. Michigan’s marriage laws have nothing to do with animus toward anyone, and it would take a radical alteration of this Court’s constitutional doctrines to hold that the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage.

4.a. Michigan’s marriage laws satisfy rational-basis review. The petitioners concede that Michigan pursues a legitimate interest and reasonably promotes that interest by acknowledging that marriage brings stability to families and promotes positive child outcomes. Pet. Br. 22, 37. The fact that Michigan’s marriage definition may be under- or overinclusive is no ground to invalidate it. It is not Michigan’s burden to prove that excluding a group will promote a law’s purpose. To the contrary, when “the inclusion of one group promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of other groups would not, we cannot say that the statute’s classification of beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries is invidiously discriminatory.” Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 383 (1974). Responding to the reality that a man and a woman are generally able to create new life neither discriminates nor entails animus at all.

So, tell us again how the argument that gay marriage is not good for children was not made to the Court.

There is no mention there of the direct correlation between the prevalence of unstructured (non-mom-and-dad) families and social demise.

Cause there is none.

Only to those who are insulated from the reality.

Your head is to far up you ass to have any familiarity with reality.

Another defeated lefty goes gutter. Why am I not surprised. Can't deal with hate facts, eh?