In Elegant Ruling, Carter Appointed Federal Judge Upholds Traditional Marriage

[Skylar]

Feel free to point out where I have been wrong once- or that you have been right

He can't. He's getting uselessly vague. Its his tell. The more his claims are disproven.....the more he declares victory based on imaginary 'secret' evidence. Which, of course, he can't cite, show us, or establish even exists.

Sigh.....its the rhetorical equivalent of a turd swirling in the bowl on its way down the drain.

 

[The Rabbi]

See what I said about having to endure Rabbi's denialism?

Its like watching a train wreck. I...I just can't look away.

Does he really think we can't read the law just because he denies what it says? What's the pay off for him? He's just burning through credibility like he's feeding books to a bonfire.

I don't get it. Its not like the law is magically going to change just because he closes his eyes.

Burning through credibility=kicking our asses.
Face it. You've got nothing on this thread but misstatements, errors of logic, errors of fact, half truths, falsehoods and deflection.
You have thoroughly lost the argument. Time to pack it in.

Feel free to point out where I have been wrong once- or that you have been right.

Here is the dialogue you and I had- highlighted where you were wrong- and don't have the moral integrity to admit it.

Rabbi: The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens.

Me: Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?

Rabbi: Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.

Me:

Wis. Stat. §765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”).

Me:

States which allow First cousin marriages under specific circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Indiana- if both are at least 65.

Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce

So we have 5 states which allow marriage between couples- but only if they are unable to reproduce.

Rabbi: One aberrant case isnt proof of anything.

So how many times are you flat out wrong in this series of posts?

a) You claimed that a law in Wisconsin forbidding marriage to some couples unless they were infertile was BS
b) You claimed one aberrant case was not proof- so I provided you with 5
c) You claimed The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens- and have not once addressed the 5 state laws which provide for marriage only if no future citizens can be produced. The State could have forbidden those marriages- but instead chooses to allow those marriages only if they NEVER produce 'future citizens'- what distinguishes those couples from same gender couples?

 

[The Rabbi]

Feel free to point out where I have been wrong once- or that you have been right

He can't. He's getting uselessly vague. Its his tell. The more his claims are disproven.....the more he declares victory based on imaginary 'secret' evidence. Which, of course, he can't cite, show us, or establish even exists.

Sigh.....its the rhetorical equivalent of a turd swirling in the bowl on its way down the drain.

My claims have never been disproven.
The state has an interest in fostering relationships that produce stable families with children. They therefore favor those unions that tend, note the word "tend", to produce them.
The stupid libs cannot think beyond black and white, cannot think beyond stage one. Therefore this argument is totally confusing to them because to them it means either a marriage will produce children and be state sanctioned or it wont and will not be state sanctioned. That's the black/white thinking typical of the brain dead left.

 

[Skylar]

My claims have never been disproven.

Obviously they have. Here's your claim:

Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry...

Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.

And yet, you were straight up clueless, weren't you?

Wis. Stat. §
765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”).

You were wrong. And every time you deny it, I just quote you and quote the law......and you toss few more bundles of your credibility onto the bonfire of intellectual dishonesty. And get nothing in return.

Laughing....its not like we can't just read the law and see that you didn't have the slightest clue what you were talking about.

The state has an interest in fostering relationships that produce stable families with children. They therefore favor those unions that tend, note the word "tend", to produce them.
The stupid libs cannot think beyond black and white, cannot think beyond stage one. Therefore this argument is totally confusing to them because to them it means either a marriage will produce children and be state sanctioned or it wont and will not be state sanctioned. That's the black/white thinking typical of the brain dead left.

Then why is no one required to reproduce or be able to reproduce for their marriages to be valid? Why does Wisconsin and other States actually require some couples to prove they can't reproduce before their marriages are valid? And who says that gays and lesbians won't have families? Who says that marriage won't make those families more stable?

You're using a standard that doesn't exist and is applied to no one. Then applying your imaginary standard exclusively to gays and lesbians to exclude them from marriage. And yet never applying your imaginary standard to straight couples who get an inexplicable pass on exclusion....even if they can't have children.

Can you see why 50 different federal courts haven't been terribly impressed with that reasoning?

 

[The Rabbi]

My claims have never been disproven.

Obviously they have. Here's your claim:

Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry...

Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.

And yet, you were straight up clueless, weren't you?

Wis. Stat. §
765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”).

You were wrong. And every time you deny it, I just quote you and quote the law......and you toss few more bundles of your credibility onto the bonfire of intellectual dishonesty. And get nothing in return.

Laughing....its not like we can't just read the law and see that you didn't have the slightest clue what you were talking about.

The state has an interest in fostering relationships that produce stable families with children. They therefore favor those unions that tend, note the word "tend", to produce them.
The stupid libs cannot think beyond black and white, cannot think beyond stage one. Therefore this argument is totally confusing to them because to them it means either a marriage will produce children and be state sanctioned or it wont and will not be state sanctioned. That's the black/white thinking typical of the brain dead left.

Then why is no one required to reproduce or be able to reproduce for their marriages to be valid? Why does Wisconsin and other States actually require some couples to prove they can't reproduce before their marriages are valid? And who says that gays and lesbians won't have families? Who says that marriage won't make those families more stable?

You're using a standard that doesn't exist and is applied to no one. Then applying your imaginary standard exclusively to gays and lesbians to exclude them from marriage. Can you see why 50 different federal courts haven't been terribly impressed with that reasoning?

See, you can't get out of your black/white, on/off, yes/no paradigm. That's why you'll never understand this and why you're wasting people's time with your nonsense.

 

[Skylar]

See, you can't get out of your black/white, on/off, yes/no paradigm. That's why you'll never understand this and why you're wasting people's time with your nonsense.

You mean the paradigm where you didn't know what the **** you were talking about and were demonstrably, laughably, gloriously wrong.....and simply aren't man enough to admit it? Where you demonstrated how useless you quoting yourself on the law actually is? Even as you try again to use the exact same debunked standard of you citing yourself on yet another point of law you know nothing about?

I don't know about you, but that paradigm is quite entertaining. Its a no-lose scenario for me. As your every denial of reality just obliterates your credibility. And costs me nothing.

 

[The Rabbi]

See, you can't get out of your black/white, on/off, yes/no paradigm. That's why you'll never understand this and why you're wasting people's time with your nonsense.

You mean the paradigm where you didn't know what the **** you were talking about and were demonstrably, laughably, gloriously wrong.....and simply aren't man enough to admit it? Where you demonstrated how useless you quoting yourself on the law actually is? Even as you try again to use the exact same debunked standard of you citing yourself on yet another point of law you know nothing about?

I don't know about you, but that paradigm is quite entertaining. Its a no-lose scenario for me. As your every denial of reality just obliterates your credibility. And costs me nothing.

No. The paradigm where you cannot think beyond two things. I've already proven all that.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and you never did answer my question. If the purpose of marriage is to produce children....then why is no one required to produce childrenor be able to reproduce for their marriages to be valid? Why does Wisconsin and other States actually require some couples to prove they can't reproduce before their marriages are valid? And who says that gays and lesbians won't have families? Who says that marriage won't make those families more stable?

You're using a standard that doesn't exist and is applied to no one. Then applying your imaginary standard exclusively to gays and lesbians to exclude them from marriage. And yet never applying your imaginary standard to straight couples who get an inexplicable pass on exclusion....even if they can't have children.

And does the term 'equal protection in the law' mean anything to you? It should.

 

[Skylar]

No. The paradigm where you cannot think beyond two things. I've already proven all that.

I'm quite happy pointing out how you don't know what you're talking about regarding marriage law. It erodes your credibility when you start offering us pseudo-legal gibberish about marriage law.....citing only yourself again. Better yet, your denials of utterly obvious mistakes that you made regarding the law erode it even further. As it proves that you're quite happy to ignore the law if it doesn't say what you want. And the law clearly isn't the basis of your argument.

Ignoring the law isn't a legal argument. Its an excuse for one.

Which might explain the nearly perfect record of failure for opponents of gay marriage in federal court. Why the USSC has preserved every lower court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans. Why every circuit appellant court to rule on gay marriage bans has overturned them. Why the USSC established that gays and lesbians can be protected from discrimination under the law in the Romer V. Evans ruling. And why the USSC overturned the provisions of DOMA that defined marriage as only one man and one woman in the Windsor decision.

But they're all wrong and only you're right, huh?

Laughing....good luck with that.

 

[The Rabbi]

No. The paradigm where you cannot think beyond two things. I've already proven all that.

I'm quite happy pointing out how you don't know what you're talking about regarding marriage law. It erodes your credibility when you start offering us pseudo-legal gibberish about marriage law.....citing only yourself again. Better yet, your denials of utterly obvious mistakes that you made regarding the law erode it even further. As it proves that you're quite happy to ignore the law if it doesn't say what you want. And the law clearly isn't the basis of your argument.

Ignoring the law isn't a legal argument. Its an excuse for one.

Which might explain the nearly perfect record of failure for opponents of gay marriage in federal court. Why the USSC has preserved every lower court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans. Why every circuit appellant court to rule on gay marriage bans has overturned them. Why the USSC established that gays and lesbians can be protected from discrimination under the law in the Romer V. Evans ruling. And why the USSC overturned the provisions of DOMA that defined marriage as only one man and one woman in the Windsor decision.

But they're all wrong and only you're right, huh?

Laughing....good luck with that.

blahblahblah

 

[Skylar]

Laughing.....you're done, kiddo. Come on back when you need another lesson in why you citing you doesn't amount to much.

 

[The Rabbi]

Laughing.....you're done, kiddo. Come on back when you need another lesson in why you citing you doesn't amount to much.

LOL!
You're a trip. You can't understand an argument and you think that means you won.
Yeah, OK. You won. Here' your sign.
LOL.

 

[Pop23]

So.....back to the claim that Syrius has so thoroughly supported with evidence:

If marriage is all about children,why then does Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry?

Anyone?

Operative words big guy

They must prove they cannot

Not an issue with same sex

The dynamics of the relationships are a world apart. Obviously they are no where near the same.

The more you post this drivel, the more different you prove they are.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gay rights will win in the end. The Rabbi's of the world notwithstanding.

 

[Pop23]

Gay rights will win in the end. The Rabbi's of the world notwithstanding.

It's been tried before, failed each time

 

[Syriusly]

See what I said about having to endure Rabbi's denialism?

Its like watching a train wreck. I...I just can't look away.

Does he really think we can't read the law just because he denies what it says? What's the pay off for him? He's just burning through credibility like he's feeding books to a bonfire.

I don't get it. Its not like the law is magically going to change just because he closes his eyes.

Burning through credibility=kicking our asses.
Face it. You've got nothing on this thread but misstatements, errors of logic, errors of fact, half truths, falsehoods and deflection.
You have thoroughly lost the argument. Time to pack it in.

Feel free to point out where I have been wrong once- or that you have been right.

Here is the dialogue you and I had- highlighted where you were wrong- and don't have the moral integrity to admit it.

Rabbi: The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens.

Me: Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?

Rabbi: Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.

Me:

Wis. Stat. §765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”).

Me:

States which allow First cousin marriages under specific circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Indiana- if both are at least 65.

Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce

So we have 5 states which allow marriage between couples- but only if they are unable to reproduce.

Rabbi: One aberrant case isnt proof of anything.

So how many times are you flat out wrong in this series of posts?

a) You claimed that a law in Wisconsin forbidding marriage to some couples unless they were infertile was BS
b) You claimed one aberrant case was not proof- so I provided you with 5
c) You claimed The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens- and have not once addressed the 5 state laws which provide for marriage only if no future citizens can be produced. The State could have forbidden those marriages- but instead chooses to allow those marriages only if they NEVER produce 'future citizens'- what distinguishes those couples from same gender couples?

Rabbi: Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.

Me: Wis. Stat. §765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”).

Rabbi- lots of posts- no moral integrity.

 

[Syriusly]

Feel free to point out where I have been wrong once- or that you have been right

He can't. He's getting uselessly vague. Its his tell. The more his claims are disproven.....the more he declares victory based on imaginary 'secret' evidence. Which, of course, he can't cite, show us, or establish even exists.

Sigh.....its the rhetorical equivalent of a turd swirling in the bowl on its way down the drain.

My claims have never been disproven..

Rabbi: Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.

Me:

Wis. Stat. §765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”).

 

[Silhouette]

My claims have never been disproven.
The state has an interest in fostering relationships that produce stable families with children. They therefore favor those unions that tend, note the word "tend", to produce them.
The stupid libs cannot think beyond black and white, cannot think beyond stage one. Therefore this argument is totally confusing to them because to them it means either a marriage will produce children and be state sanctioned or it wont and will not be state sanctioned. That's the black/white thinking typical of the brain dead left.

The case of the two lesbians in California drugging their son with female hormones to "prepare him to be a girl if he wants" later on is the extreme example of a more subtle message of self-hatred. When you sanction with "marriage" two women or two men playing at "parents" [mom and dad] you are sending the deep and profound message to children in that situation that are the opposite gender of the "parents" that "your gender is disposable, unnecessary in a parenting situation. In a child's mind that would simply be rendered as "I am unnecessary/unwanted as my gender". That runs the gamut from just a hurtful self-esteem mind-**** all the way up to drugging a child to wire his brain to reject his own gender by the time he [or she] is old enough to get "doctors" to help him or her chop off healthy organs to play-act the opposite [allowed, appropriate, desireable] gender.

 

[Syriusly]

Feel free to point out where I have been wrong once- or that you have been right

He can't. He's getting uselessly vague. Its his tell. The more his claims are disproven.....the more he declares victory based on imaginary 'secret' evidence. Which, of course, he can't cite, show us, or establish even exists.

Sigh.....its the rhetorical equivalent of a turd swirling in the bowl on its way down the drain.

The state has an interest in fostering relationships that produce stable families with children. They therefore favor those unions that tend, note the word "tend", to produce them.

The stupid libs cannot think beyond black and white, cannot think beyond stage one. Therefore this argument is totally confusing to them because to them it means either a marriage will produce children and be state sanctioned or it wont and will not be state sanctioned. That's the black/white thinking typical of the brain dead left.

Stupid homophobes can't explain why States allow First cousins to marry but only if they prove that they cannot produce children- and are opposite gender- but do not allow First cousins to marry if they are the same gender and cannot produce children.

Stupid homophobes cannot produce any example of the state 'fostering relationships that produce stable families with children' that are related to marriage laws.

Stupid homophobes somehow think that if they just keep repeating that marriage is about 'fostering relationships that produce children' that means something other than "We won't allow gay people to marry".

And that is why the stupid homophobes keep losing in court.

 

[Syriusly]

My claims have never been disproven.
The state has an interest in fostering relationships that produce stable families with children. They therefore favor those unions that tend, note the word "tend", to produce them.
The stupid libs cannot think beyond black and white, cannot think beyond stage one. Therefore this argument is totally confusing to them because to them it means either a marriage will produce children and be state sanctioned or it wont and will not be state sanctioned. That's the black/white thinking typical of the brain dead left.

The case of the two lesbians in California drugging their son wr.

Sihouette has pulled another strawman from her vast strawman field.