US Supreme Court to Meet This Week To Decide To Take Up Gay Marriage Debate/Case

[Silhouette]

What does the B in LGBT stand for?

"Anything goes".. when discussing who should be incentivized with tax breaks to be parents to kids in marriage a state does not benefit that loss of revenue by "anything goes" when its objective is to produce well-rounded future citizens (children)...

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Attraction is not a lifestyle.

But even a lifestyle like Christianity or Judaism is not prevented from entering the lifestyle that is marriage.

It is if you ask Anne Heche. She decided that if she was attracted to all things masculine, why not simply be with a man? So she switched lifestyles. Simple as that.

What does the B in LGBT stand for?

Yes, that's irrefutable proof that there's a such thing as bisexual.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, that's irrefutable proof that there's a such thing as bisexual.

Pitching for LGBT again I see..

There are such things as poly-sexuals too (polygamists). Should they be denied "marriage equality" StMike? Yes or no? And why yes if that's your answer?

 

[Syriusly]

Looks like the court can't continue to dump the issue on the lower courts and will have to make a call

Constitutionally, there is no basis for the state to bar gay marriage

Except that it's an incentivized privelege meant to benefit children...of whom will suffer with "gay marriage" the lack of the complimentary gender as parent 100% of the time...just like single parent households..

There are the civil rights of childrens' best interests that will enter into this debate...as well as why states should lose money on marriage without receiving a benefit.

The only children that suffer from 'gay marriage' are the children of gay parents that you would deny marriage.

Gay parents with children
Gay parents with children get married= married gay parents with children.

You just want to prevent the children of gay parents from having married parents- and as Justice Kennedy pointed out- that does harm children.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No. I'm not "excluded from the [sic] privelege of marriage".

To my knowledge, my "lifestyle group" has never been forbidden to marry.

You are still wrong that heterosexuality is a "lifestyle" choice.

I said that LGBT is a lifestyle. And that's because it is. Ask Anne Heche....

Attraction is not a lifestyle.

But even a lifestyle like Christianity or Judaism is not prevented from entering the lifestyle that is marriage.

Was going to say very much the same thing.

And that its more than a bit disingenuous and w-a-y hypocritical to say that heterosexuality is hardwired into us but homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" and that heteros are born "that way" while homos choose to be "that way".

The phobes need to make up their minds because they don't get to have it both ways.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, that's irrefutable proof that there's a such thing as bisexual.

Pitching for LGBT again I see..

There are such things as poly-sexuals too (polygamists). Should they be denied "marriage equality" StMike? Yes or no? And why yes if that's your answer?

You are delusional.

 

[Silhouette]

You are delusional.

Syriusly, do you support polygamy in "marriage equality"...yes or no? And if no, why not?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yes, that's irrefutable proof that there's a such thing as bisexual.

Pitching for LGBT again I see..

There are such things as poly-sexuals too (polygamists). Should they be denied "marriage equality" StMike? Yes or no? And why yes if that's your answer?

You are delusional.

For once I agree with you.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What does the B in LGBT stand for?

"Anything goes".. when discussing who should be incentivized with tax breaks to be parents to kids in marriage a state does not benefit that loss of revenue by "anything goes" when its objective is to produce well-rounded future citizens (children)...

So often, the Peeping Tom phobes come across as just plain jealous. Be that as it may, IF it involves consenting adults, what's wrong with "anything goes"?

Needless to say, kids are a different issue.

As are tax breaks.

 

[Syriusly]

You are delusional.

Syriusly, do you support polygamy in "marriage equality"...yes or no? And if no, why not?

Seriously I don't take a position on that strawman.

Because the only ones advocating it are homophobic bigots who use this strawman to attack homosexuals.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Yes, that's irrefutable proof that there's a such thing as bisexual.

Pitching for LGBT again I see..

There are such things as poly-sexuals too (polygamists). Should they be denied "marriage equality" StMike? Yes or no? And why yes if that's your answer?

No, of course not.

IF between consenting adults, its their business. Not yours.

Quit your Peeping Tom crap and MYOB

 

[Skylar]

Looks like the court can't continue to dump the issue on the lower courts and will have to make a call

Constitutionally, there is no basis for the state to bar gay marriage

Except that it's an incentivized privelege meant to benefit children...of whom will suffer with "gay marriage" the lack of the complimentary gender as parent 100% of the time...just like single parent households..

There are the civil rights of childrens' best interests that will enter into this debate...as well as why states should lose money on marriage without receiving a benefit.

The best interest of children already has entered into the debate. And the USSC has already found that denying same sex parents the right to marry hurts their children.

You simply ignore this portion of the Windsor ruling...as if by ignoring it, so will the USSC. But your willful ignorance really doesn't translate into theirs.

 

[Plasmaball]

If marriage is about children, why then do the childless couples receive all the same benefits as those with children? What of all the infertile couples that allowed to marry or remain married? And why, pray tell, is no one required to have children or be able to have children in order to get married?

The standard you insist we use to exclude gays from marriage doesn't exist and applies to no one.

Because childless couples do not interfere with the structure of male/female marriage.

Neither does gay marriage. A gay couple marrying doesn't 'interfere' with a straight couple's marital structure.

You once again are refusing to argue this debate from a standpoint that children trump adults in consideration of the marriage structure. Please stay focused for purposes of this debate. Your strawmen are frankly infuriating; they are so insulting to the intelligence..

When one CONSIDERS THAT MARRIAGE FROM A STATE'S POV IS ABOUT CHILDREN FOREMOST then one sees quite clearly how gay marriage harms children. A state incentivizing gay marriage is the same as a state incentivizing single parenthood because both harmful structures guarantee the state that they will deprive the children in those homes of both complimentary genders vital to a child's formative experience, 100% of the time.

The STRUCTURE of marriage is IMPORTANT. It is VITAL to CHILDREN..

no it isnt.

 

[Plasmaball]

What does the B in LGBT stand for?

"Anything goes".. when discussing who should be incentivized with tax breaks to be parents to kids in marriage a state does not benefit that loss of revenue by "anything goes" when its objective is to produce well-rounded future citizens (children)...

irrelevant

 

[Silhouette]

"no it isn't" and "Irrelevant"? etc...

You'd better hope to have more of a substantive argument when the Hearing happens. State's right of self-governance and related child-welfare is a huge part of this debate and it's not going to go away.

 

[Silhouette]

There are such things as poly-sexuals too (polygamists). Should they be denied "marriage equality" StMike? Yes or no? And why yes if that's your answer?

No, of course not.

IF between consenting adults, its their business. Not yours.

Quit your Peeping Tom crap and MYOB

So then you will be submitting an Amicus Brief on "why polygamists must also get "marriage equality" at the SCOTUS hearing this year on whether or not they're going to overturn Windsor 2013 so soon?

 

[Skylar]

There are such things as poly-sexuals too (polygamists). Should they be denied "marriage equality" StMike? Yes or no? And why yes if that's your answer?

No, of course not.

IF between consenting adults, its their business. Not yours.

Quit your Peeping Tom crap and MYOB

So then you will be submitting an Amicus Brief on "why polygamists must also get "marriage equality" at the SCOTUS hearing this year on whether or not they're going to overturn Windsor 2013 so soon?

What polygamy case is the USSC hearing this year?

 

[Silhouette]

What polygamy case is the USSC hearing this year?

"Marriage equality" of course!... What, didn't you think the Supreme Justices were smart enough to anticipate that all sexual lifestyles petitioning or not would receive the same "rights" once marriage is changed from a state-granted privelege that it is now to a federally-forced "right" for anyone in any conceivable combination....formative environment for children be damned?...

 

[Skylar]

What polygamy case is the USSC hearing this year?

"Marriage equality" of course!... What, didn't you think the Supreme Justices were smart enough to anticipate that all sexual lifestyles petitioning or not would receive the same "rights" once marriage is changed from a state-granted privelege that it is now to a federally-forced "right" for anyone in any conceivable combination....formative environment for children be damned?...

Can you cite the case where the legality of polygamy is being adjudicated by the courts this year? Or is this another one of those issues you've just imagined?

 

[Silhouette]

Can you cite the case where the legality of polygamy is being adjudicated by the courts this year? Or is this another one of those issues you've just imagined?

Yes, of course! Polyamory. They are "oriented" towards "loving" more than one person. What, isn't that good enough for the LGBTQ label?