Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[kaz]

OK, let's subject it to the test. Being black changed who you can marry, a violation of the 14th amendment. Being gay doesn't change who you can marry. Oops, we subjected gay marriage to the test, and it failed...

The same sex marriage bans absolutely changes who you can marry. As a lesbian couldn't marry another lesbian.

No, a straight woman cannot marry another woman either. The law is applied equally. Fail.

The same sex marriage bans absolutely changes who you can marry. As a lesbian couldn't marry another lesbian

A straight can't marry another lesbian either. Fail.

 

[kaz]

Just more of your usual BS trying to derail a thread about gay marriage because you are against all legal marriage.

Yes, you want gay marriage to be legal marriage. I am against legal marriage. You don't get the connection between those, LOL.

So instead of fighting to eliminate legal marriage, you are here arguing that in the meantime, same gender couples should be denied the same treatment as opposite gender couples.

Explain how expanding discrimination is a step towards ending it.

And practically, if gay activists get government marriage, they are going to go from fighting our present discriminatory system to defending it making it hall the harder to end it.

Which leads back to the first point, explain how expanding discrimination is a step towards ending it. Clearly it's a step away from ending it.

 

[The Rabbi]

And yet liberal after liberal can't answer a simple question. Name one. Name someone who being gay changes who they are allowed to marry. Who can they marry if they were straight they are prohibited from marrying because they were gay? Name one.

Anti miscegenation laws discriminated based on race. Anti gay marriage laws discriminate based on gender. Both rooted solely in animus (hence the reason they lost and are losing)

Note you still couldn't answer the simple question, so you deflected with a false analogy.

But I don't want to marry a man anymore than Mildred Loving wanted to marry a black man. Neither of us were prevented from marrying. (Thanks to the courts we both got to marry the non familial consenting partner of our choice) Ain't America grand?

Discrimination based solely on animus is discrimination based solely on animus. You have no rational basis to discriminate which is why you're losing.

Still no answer to the question...

It was, you just don't like it. There is no rational basis for your wish to discriminate anymore that there was a rational basis for anti miscegenation laws. Anti gay laws will fall the same way they did as a result. I'm sorry, I should have said ARE falling.

Argument 1

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And yet liberal after liberal can't answer a simple question. Name one. Name someone who being gay changes who they are allowed to marry. Who can they marry if they were straight they are prohibited from marrying because they were gay? Name one.

Anti miscegenation laws discriminated based on race. Anti gay marriage laws discriminate based on gender. Both rooted solely in animus (hence the reason they lost and are losing)

Note you still couldn't answer the simple question, so you deflected with a false analogy.

But I don't want to marry a man anymore than Mildred Loving wanted to marry a black man. Neither of us were prevented from marrying. (Thanks to the courts we both got to marry the non familial consenting partner of our choice) Ain't America grand?

Discrimination based solely on animus is discrimination based solely on animus. You have no rational basis to discriminate which is why you're losing.

Still no answer to the question...

It was, you just don't like it. There is no rational basis for your wish to discriminate anymore that there was a rational basis for anti miscegenation laws. Anti gay laws will fall the same way they did as a result. I'm sorry, I should have said ARE falling.

The basis for discrimination is that such is critical to the survival of the species.

Discrimination is a critical function of human reasoning, and this without regard to the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, which demands that humanity suspend the means to discern distinction, toward the goal of sustaining viability. Because, apparently, they don't feel that it is FAIR that everyone else gets to be NORMAL, thus gets to do what normal people can do, and THEY have to be ABNORMAL and as a result are limited to doing only what is safe for the rest of us... by limiting the scope of what their perverse reasoning can influence.

It is much the same for the Muslim who finds for no requirement to consider cause and effect... with both thesis' leading only to chaos calamity and catastrophe. Which is how we can know that such ideas rests in evil... because 'we shall know them by their fruit' and the ONLY fruit which either produce are chaos, calamity and catastrophe... Evil.

Like the Ideological Leftist, they are operate upon a perverse variant of human reasoning and THAT is why where ever you find the sexually abnormal, Islam and/or the Ideological Left, you find CHAOS, CALAMITY AND CATASTROPHE.

And why the world is presently turning toward the eradication of all three.

It hasn't turned much... but the consequences of such are on the precipice of demonstrating the intrinsic danger that such represent and after that triumvirate of evil collide... you will not believe that cataclysmic results that are going to come from that mess.

At which point, you will not find a single person who will so much as admit to having watched "Will and Grace"... or who used the phrase "Religion of Peace" or who claimed to support a "Mixed Economy".

Assuming you're one of the few who will survive it... most of us will not.

 

[Skylar]

Anti miscegenation laws discriminated based on race. Anti gay marriage laws discriminate based on gender. Both rooted solely in animus (hence the reason they lost and are losing)

Note you still couldn't answer the simple question, so you deflected with a false analogy.

But I don't want to marry a man anymore than Mildred Loving wanted to marry a black man. Neither of us were prevented from marrying. (Thanks to the courts we both got to marry the non familial consenting partner of our choice) Ain't America grand?

Discrimination based solely on animus is discrimination based solely on animus. You have no rational basis to discriminate which is why you're losing.

Still no answer to the question...

It was, you just don't like it. There is no rational basis for your wish to discriminate anymore that there was a rational basis for anti miscegenation laws. Anti gay laws will fall the same way they did as a result. I'm sorry, I should have said ARE falling.

Argument 1

Which you can't refute and run from every time its articulated.

Keep running.

 

[Skylar]

Anti miscegenation laws discriminated based on race. Anti gay marriage laws discriminate based on gender. Both rooted solely in animus (hence the reason they lost and are losing)

Note you still couldn't answer the simple question, so you deflected with a false analogy.

But I don't want to marry a man anymore than Mildred Loving wanted to marry a black man. Neither of us were prevented from marrying. (Thanks to the courts we both got to marry the non familial consenting partner of our choice) Ain't America grand?

Discrimination based solely on animus is discrimination based solely on animus. You have no rational basis to discriminate which is why you're losing.

Still no answer to the question...

It was, you just don't like it. There is no rational basis for your wish to discriminate anymore that there was a rational basis for anti miscegenation laws. Anti gay laws will fall the same way they did as a result. I'm sorry, I should have said ARE falling.

The basis for discrimination is that such is critical to the survival of the species.

No it isn't. If gay marriage is recognized, if it isn't, people will keep on *******.

Like the Ideological Leftist, they are operate upon a perverse variant of human reasoning and THAT is why where ever you find the sexually abnormal, Islam and/or the Ideological Left, you find CHAOS, CALAMITY AND CATASTROPHE.

Sigh.....you're taking the 'slippery slope' fallacy to a bit of a melodramatic extreme, don't you think?

And why the world is presently turning toward the eradication of all three.

The world isn't turning toward the eradication of homosexuals. You're projecting your own desires for what the 'world' is doing.

Assuming you're one of the few who will survive it... most of us will not.

If you die because gays are allowed to marry.....well that's Darwin in action.

 

[Skylar]

Overwhelmingly probably true, but you can't conclude that without knowing the actual cause of gayness. In theory, it could not be behavioral or genetic but have a psychological root based on relationships to heterosexual parents. Like if you are a girl, something about your relationship with your male and female parents makes you desire women not men. And vice versa. I'm not arguing that, I'm just saying we don't know what causes gay, so we can't be certain about anything until we do.

That's somewhat reasonable. With one caveat: we don't have a definitive answer. But we do have quite a bit of evidence that indicates that children of same sex parents aren't any more likely to be gay than straight parents.

So we do have some pretty strong indications of what the cause isn't; exposure to gay people.

I agree on that, I find it highly unlikely that heterosexual parents would influence a kid to be gay unless the kid really is on the line between straight and gay anyway.

What is a downside though for gay adoption is that people evolved with a mother and father who have clearly different personalities and roles in child raising. It's ideal a child have both a male and female parent to gain both experiences. The same experience with two parents of the same sex does not make up for one relationship with each of two sexes.

I hear what you're saying. But there have been numerous studies on the topic and the kids are fine. I suspect any possible 'disadvantage' associated with same sex parents is more than mitigated by the fact that all children in a same sex union are intentional. Which means the parents want them and have a much better opportunity to prepare for them...both emotionally and financially.

 

[Skylar]

OK, let's subject it to the test. Being black changed who you can marry, a violation of the 14th amendment. Being gay doesn't change who you can marry. Oops, we subjected gay marriage to the test, and it failed...

The same sex marriage bans absolutely changes who you can marry. As a lesbian couldn't marry another lesbian.

No, a straight woman cannot marry another woman either. The law is applied equally. Fail.

The same sex marriage bans absolutely changes who you can marry. As a lesbian couldn't marry another lesbian

A straight can't marry another lesbian either. Fail.

Sure he can if she consents. The law doesn't prevent it. Same sex marriage bans prevent people of the same sex from marrying. Just as interracial marriage prevents people of different races from marrying.

But the basis of the restriction must be constitutionally valid. If they aren't, then the restrictions are invalid.

And Romer V. Evans makes it clear that a constitutionally valid restriction must be three fold: 1) Have a good reason 2) Serve a valid legislative end, 3) serve a legitimate state interest.

And gay marriage doesn't do any of this. You can ignore the constitution requirements of such restrictions. But you can't make the court ignore them.

 

[danielpalos]

Marriage is a purely private Act and natural right.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage is a purely private Act and natural right.

Purely private act?

I got married in front of 100 people, and had a marriage license when I did so.

Certainly not a private act, and certainly involved the state.

 

[The Rabbi]

Marriage is a purely private Act and natural right.

So why are gheys pushing for state marriage licenses?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marriage is a purely private Act and natural right.

So why are gheys pushing for state marriage licenses?

Because here it's a State License, and they are unequal, but only in 12 of 50 states which is remarkable.

 

[Seawytch]

Overwhelmingly probably true, but you can't conclude that without knowing the actual cause of gayness. In theory, it could not be behavioral or genetic but have a psychological root based on relationships to heterosexual parents. Like if you are a girl, something about your relationship with your male and female parents makes you desire women not men. And vice versa. I'm not arguing that, I'm just saying we don't know what causes gay, so we can't be certain about anything until we do.

That's somewhat reasonable. With one caveat: we don't have a definitive answer. But we do have quite a bit of evidence that indicates that children of same sex parents aren't any more likely to be gay than straight parents.

So we do have some pretty strong indications of what the cause isn't; exposure to gay people.

I agree on that, I find it highly unlikely that heterosexual parents would influence a kid to be gay unless the kid really is on the line between straight and gay anyway.

What is a downside though for gay adoption is that people evolved with a mother and father who have clearly different personalities and roles in child raising. It's ideal a child have both a male and female parent to gain both experiences. The same experience with two parents of the same sex does not make up for one relationship with each of two sexes.

I hear what you're saying. But there have been numerous studies on the topic and the kids are fine. I suspect any possible 'disadvantage' associated with same sex parents is more than mitigated by the fact that all children in a same sex union are intentional. Which means the parents want them and have a much better opportunity to prepare for them...both emotionally and financially.

Exactly...there have been numerous studies on the topic and the children of gays and lesbians are at no disadvantage to those of straights. There are no differences in outcomes.

What is ideal is for children to have two parents...their gender is immaterial. (except when it comes to lactation)

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage is a purely private Act and natural right.

So why are gheys pushing for state marriage licenses?

Because straights decided to license it and put great store in it. As conservative lawyer (Bush v Gore) Ted Olson put it:

Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.​

 

[kaz]

Overwhelmingly probably true, but you can't conclude that without knowing the actual cause of gayness. In theory, it could not be behavioral or genetic but have a psychological root based on relationships to heterosexual parents. Like if you are a girl, something about your relationship with your male and female parents makes you desire women not men. And vice versa. I'm not arguing that, I'm just saying we don't know what causes gay, so we can't be certain about anything until we do.

That's somewhat reasonable. With one caveat: we don't have a definitive answer. But we do have quite a bit of evidence that indicates that children of same sex parents aren't any more likely to be gay than straight parents.

So we do have some pretty strong indications of what the cause isn't; exposure to gay people.

I agree on that, I find it highly unlikely that heterosexual parents would influence a kid to be gay unless the kid really is on the line between straight and gay anyway.

What is a downside though for gay adoption is that people evolved with a mother and father who have clearly different personalities and roles in child raising. It's ideal a child have both a male and female parent to gain both experiences. The same experience with two parents of the same sex does not make up for one relationship with each of two sexes.

I hear what you're saying. But there have been numerous studies on the topic and the kids are fine. I suspect any possible 'disadvantage' associated with same sex parents is more than mitigated by the fact that all children in a same sex union are intentional. Which means the parents want them and have a much better opportunity to prepare for them...both emotionally and financially.

Exactly...there have been numerous studies on the topic and the children of gays and lesbians are at no disadvantage to those of straights. There are no differences in outcomes.

What is ideal is for children to have two parents...their gender is immaterial. (except when it comes to lactation)

Yet on repeated questioning for those studies, you have provided only an article by an author which stated they read a study and they gave their opinion on what it said.

At the same time, to back up your views you claimed no one had researched parenting roles of men and women in raising children and the only difference between men and women is their sex organs. Other than sex organs, apparently being with a man would be the same to you.

That was quite the educational discussion, you are quite the intellect.

Here's a shorter way to present your argument. No it isn't.

There you go, saves time.

 

[Seawytch]

Overwhelmingly probably true, but you can't conclude that without knowing the actual cause of gayness. In theory, it could not be behavioral or genetic but have a psychological root based on relationships to heterosexual parents. Like if you are a girl, something about your relationship with your male and female parents makes you desire women not men. And vice versa. I'm not arguing that, I'm just saying we don't know what causes gay, so we can't be certain about anything until we do.

That's somewhat reasonable. With one caveat: we don't have a definitive answer. But we do have quite a bit of evidence that indicates that children of same sex parents aren't any more likely to be gay than straight parents.

So we do have some pretty strong indications of what the cause isn't; exposure to gay people.

I agree on that, I find it highly unlikely that heterosexual parents would influence a kid to be gay unless the kid really is on the line between straight and gay anyway.

What is a downside though for gay adoption is that people evolved with a mother and father who have clearly different personalities and roles in child raising. It's ideal a child have both a male and female parent to gain both experiences. The same experience with two parents of the same sex does not make up for one relationship with each of two sexes.

I hear what you're saying. But there have been numerous studies on the topic and the kids are fine. I suspect any possible 'disadvantage' associated with same sex parents is more than mitigated by the fact that all children in a same sex union are intentional. Which means the parents want them and have a much better opportunity to prepare for them...both emotionally and financially.

Exactly...there have been numerous studies on the topic and the children of gays and lesbians are at no disadvantage to those of straights. There are no differences in outcomes.

What is ideal is for children to have two parents...their gender is immaterial. (except when it comes to lactation)

Yet on repeated questioning for those studies, you have provided only an article by an author which stated they read a study and they gave their opinion on what it said.

At the same time, to back up your views you claimed no one had researched parenting roles of men and women in raising children and the only difference between men and women is their sex organs. Other than sex organs, apparently being with a man would be the same to you.

That was quite the educational discussion, you are quite the intellect.

Here's a shorter way to present your argument. No it isn't.

There you go, saves time.

No, that isn't what I've said. What I've said (and there are numerous studies to support it) is that the sex organs of the parents don't matter when it comes to parenting. I know what you think is "ideal", but your opinion holds no more scientific weight than the opinion that rich white parents are the "ideal".

There are no difference in outcomes between our children and yours...this is a fact that cannot be refuted.

 

[kaz]

No, that isn't what I've said. What I've said (and there are numerous studies to support it) is that the sex organs of the parents don't matter when it comes to parenting

It's funny how you hear words and yet you can't hear them in the right order. You mixed up two separate points.

I know what you think is "ideal", but your opinion holds no more scientific weight than the opinion that rich white parents are the "ideal".

All you have offered is your opinion and the opinion of someone who read a study and told us what they think it said.

There are no difference in outcomes between our children and yours...this is a fact that cannot be refuted.

What you haven't shown is what the standard for this statement is. Test scores, grades and income don't prove there is no difference. The differences are emotional. Again I know, I grew up in a single parent household without a father. A second mother would not have filled the gap any more than if I had one left shoe giving me another left shoe would have filled my need for a pair of shoes.

**************************

Liberals are so biased it's just funny. You constantly chastise conservative Christians who take the bible literally as ignoring science. You are just driven by reason, data and facts, you aren't biased.

Then it's there are two sexes in the world? It's ideal for children to have a parental relationship with one of each? Men and women are different and play different roles in parenting? We evolved that way? Nuh uh, no, the personality of the parents and their roles don't matter, all parents do is change diapers and push a carriage until the kid can support themselves, there's no emotional development or ability to relate to different sexes by having a parent of each sex.

To you, a grown adult, the emotional connection has to be with someone of the same sex. But to a child growing from birth to adulthood learning to relate to a world with two sexes, the gender of parents doesn't matter. You just change diapers and teach them to ride a bike and they are set, it's the same.

You're just as religiously close minded and intolerant as they are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Seawytch rumbles Kaz on this issue.

Marriage equality will soon be the law of the land.

 

[Seawytch]

No, that isn't what I've said. What I've said (and there are numerous studies to support it) is that the sex organs of the parents don't matter when it comes to parenting

It's funny how you hear words and yet you can't hear them in the right order. You mixed up two separate points.

I know what you think is "ideal", but your opinion holds no more scientific weight than the opinion that rich white parents are the "ideal".

All you have offered is your opinion and the opinion of someone who read a study and told us what they think it said.

There are no difference in outcomes between our children and yours...this is a fact that cannot be refuted.

What you haven't shown is what the standard for this statement is. Test scores, grades and income don't prove there is no difference. The differences are emotional. Again I know, I grew up in a single parent household without a father. A second mother would not have filled the gap any more than if I had one left shoe giving me another left shoe would have filled my need for a pair of shoes.

**************************

Liberals are so biased it's just funny. You constantly chastise conservative Christians who take the bible literally as ignoring science. You are just driven by reason, data and facts, you aren't biased.

Then it's there are two sexes in the world? It's ideal for children to have a parental relationship with one of each? Men and women are different and play different roles in parenting? We evolved that way? Nuh uh, no, the personality of the parents and their roles don't matter, all parents do is change diapers and push a carriage until the kid can support themselves, there's no emotional development or ability to relate to different sexes by having a parent of each sense.

To you, a grown adult, the emotional connection has to be with someone of the same sex. But to a child growing from birth to adulthood learning to relate to a world with two sexes, the gender of parents doesn't matter. You just change diapers and teach them to ride a bike and they are set, it's the same.

You're just as religiously close minded and intolerant as they are.

So scientists looking at studies is just their opinion on the studies. Yeah, okay...however, their opinion certainly holds more weight than yours does it not? Has your opinion been published in a peer reviewed journal like the one I provided? No.

How many times does it have to be said that our children are at no disadvantage to yours? Gender and gender roles in parenting, in study after study, have been shown to have no bearing on children's outcomes. This isn't opinion, it's fact.

Do you think that gays raise their children in bubbles exposed only to one gender?

 

[Seawytch]

Seawytch rumbles Kaz on this issue.

Marriage equality will soon be the law of the land.

Of course it will...it pretty much already is...and has nothing to do with children and parenting anyway. Children are not required for civil marriage and civil marriage is not required to have children.

Our children are fine, we're winning our civil rights...angels are getting their wings everywhere!