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

[Silhouette]

How do you give a right to homosexuals while you argue to disallow that "right" to other deviant sexual lifestylists?.

Who are you talking to? I argue that a gay couple- a couple who are attracted to the same gender who happens to be each other- have the same rights as my wife and I enjoy. I argue for equal treatment for couples regardless of their sexual identity. You argue that homosexuals must be discriminated against. And that their children should be denied married parents.

Gays don't have children. One of the child's parent is missing 100% of the time. The complimentary gender vital as parent/role model is missing 100% of the time. Your "argument" has these fatal flaws. The biggest beef states have had with single parent homes is that even while they may have plenty of money to pull it off, the vital complimentary gender is missing to the children in the home.

Man/woman marriage does not deprive children thusly. That's the difference. And it is a key difference to any state that incentivizes marriage to produce well-rounded children.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage equality has nothing to do with children, not a thing. And a church, for this argument, is a building and the legal status it has with the state. That's all. The people that make up the church are irrelevant, like your arguments about children.

Well, there's a problem there....because marriage DOES have everything to do with children at the state level so... In order to push through "marriage equality" there are a couple things:

1. You'd have to force states to abdicate their benefit of regulating marriage"

The Supreme Court has over-ruled State marriage laws three times that I am aware of.

This will simply be number 4.

And states will still have the role of regulating marriage- and those regulations will still need to be Constitutional.

 

[Syriusly]

How do you give a right to homosexuals while you argue to disallow that "right" to other deviant sexual lifestylists?.

Who are you talking to? I argue that a gay couple- a couple who are attracted to the same gender who happens to be each other- have the same rights as my wife and I enjoy. I argue for equal treatment for couples regardless of their sexual identity. You argue that homosexuals must be discriminated against. And that their children should be denied married parents.

Gays don't have children. .

Of course they do. No less than Justice Kennedy has mentioned them repeatedly:

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

"DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others," the decision says, going on to conclude that the federal statute "is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

 

[Syriusly]

How do you give a right to homosexuals while you argue to disallow that "right" to other deviant sexual lifestylists?.

Who are you talking to? I argue that a gay couple- a couple who are attracted to the same gender who happens to be each other- have the same rights as my wife and I enjoy. I argue for equal treatment for couples regardless of their sexual identity. You argue that homosexuals must be discriminated against. And that their children should be denied married parents.

Gays don't have children. One of the child's parent is missing 100% of the time. The complimentary gender vital as parent/role model is missing 100% of the time. Your "argument" has these fatal flaws. The biggest beef states have had with single parent homes is that even while they may have plenty of money to pull it off.

The 'biggest beef' states have with single parent homes is ensuring that the absent parent is paying child support.

 

[Skylar]

Gays don't have children.

Says you. Justice Kennedy has a very different perspective.

There are some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?”

Justice Kennedy
13 key moments in the Supreme Court argument over gay marriage - U.S. News

You say one thing. The swing voter of the USSC says another. I have a pretty clear idea whose perspective is going to be most relevant to any future USSC rulings.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

In case anyone is interested. Here are the Oral Arguments before the 5th Circuit Court last Friday:

Oral Argument Recordings

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Of course they do. No less than Justice Kennedy has mentioned them repeatedly:

"There is an immediate legal injury..."

"DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others," the decision says, going on to conclude that the federal statute "is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

Yeah, in the State of New York. You left out the other 47 paragraphs that talk about how New York arrived at that decision on the specific question of law as applies to yes or no on gay marriage. It was by a statewide consensus. A thing the Court saw as "the proper legal backdrop" for the conversation in its entirety throughout Windsor...concluding that as of its writing, only SOME states had legal gay marriage.

It's funny how you always leave that part out.

There is also an immediate legal injury to children in the home of monosexuals and polysexuals...whose numbers FAR outweigh the paltry number of kids caught up in homosexual households. So your Kennedy statement applies to all children without the benefits of marriage, including the ones you hate by trying to exclude in this conversation, in favor of your pet "kids of gays"..

 

[Syriusly]

Of course they do. No less than Justice Kennedy has mentioned them repeatedly:

"There is an immediate legal injury..."

"DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others," the decision says, going on to conclude that the federal statute "is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

Yeah, in the State of New York. You left out the other 47 paragraphs that talk about how New York arrived at that decision on the specific question of law as applies to yes or no on gay marriage. It was by a statewide consensus. A thing the Court saw as "the proper legal backdrop" for the conversation in its entirety throughout Windsor...concluding that as of its writing, only SOME states had legal gay marriage.

You are as bizarre as always.

Justice Kennedy has only opined about injury to children in regards to gay marriage in two cases- and in both cases- the immediate injury is to the children that you would prevent from having married parents

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

"DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others," the decision says, going on to conclude that the federal statute "is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

 

[Silhouette]

Justice Kennedy has only opined about injury to children in regards to gay marriage in two cases- and in both cases- the immediate injury is to the children that you would prevent from having married parents

I'm sure you misunderstand Kennedy's sentiments towards children. I believe he is concerned about ANY child currently in his interpretation "in immediate legal harm" from being denied the benefits of marriage. I don't think Kennedy wishes any child to suffer.

That being said, Kennedy might want to be concerned about the untold 100s of millions of kids he might inadvertently be sentencing to psychological damage by forcing states to incentivize homes where the complimentary gender as vital parental role model is guaranteed to be missing 100% of the time....structuraly the same as single parent homes (monosexuals) That gender may be the child's own..

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, in the State of New York. You left out the other 47 paragraphs that talk about how New York arrived at that decision on the specific question of law as applies to yes or no on gay marriage. It was by a statewide consensus. A thing the Court saw as "the proper legal backdrop" for the conversation in its entirety throughout Windsor...concluding that as of its writing, only SOME states had legal gay marriage.

Actually the phrase 'proper legal backdrop' never appears once in the entire ruling. Let alone throughout 'its entirety'. So how could Sy have left out a portion of the ruling that doesn't exist?

And, of course, the issue being decided in Windsor wasn't the constitutionality or applicability of state gay marriage bans. But whether the federal government could refuse to recognize a marriage under DOMA if that marriage was recognized by the state. Which the court found the federal government couldn't. You've misrepresented the entire basis of the ruling and the basis of the case.

And finally, every single lower court ruling to have overturned gay marriage bans did so on the basis that such bans violated constitutional guarantees. Constitutional guarantees that the Windsor ruling explicitly states the State marriage laws are subject to. And yet astonishingly you always omit any mention of these guarantees, never discuss them, and refuse to acknowedge they exist.

Its funny how you always leave that part out, despite it being the only part of the Windsor ruling that's relevant to any of the lower court rulings on gay marriage bans.

There is also an immediate legal injury to children in the home of monosexuals and polysexuals..

I don't think 'monosexual' means what you think it means. You define it as a single person. While the term actually means;

Monosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction to members of one sex or gender only. A monosexual person may identify as heterosexual or homosexual. In discussions of sexual orientation, the term is chiefly used in contrast to bisexuality.

Monosexuality - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And as we've long since established, you 're-imagining' the meaning of words has no relevance to any discussion or court ruling.

 

[Skylar]

Justice Kennedy has only opined about injury to children in regards to gay marriage in two cases- and in both cases- the immediate injury is to the children that you would prevent from having married parents

I'm sure you misunderstand Kennedy's sentiments towards children. I believe he is concerned about ANY child currently in his interpretation "in immediate legal harm" from being denied the benefits of marriage. I don't think Kennedy wishes any child to suffer.

He specifically cites the 40,000 children in California who are the children of same sex parents. That defines the group he recognizes are harmed. Any you add to it is your imagination. Not Kennedy's findings or expressed opinion.

And your imagination has no legal relevance.

That being said, Kennedy might want to be concerned about the untold 100s of millions of kids he might inadvertently be sentencing to psychological damage by forcing states to incentivize homes where the complimentary gender as vital parental role model is guaranteed to be missing 100% of the time....structuraly the same as single parent homes (monosexuals) That gender may be the child's own..

Again, your fixation with 'complimentary gender roles as a vital parental role model' is your schtick. Kennedy has never expressed a particular interest in the issue nor concern over it. You are again citing your imagination.

Kennedy has repeatedly expressed an interest in and a recognition of the immediate harm being caused by the state's failure to recognize the marriages of their parents.

So you imagine harm that the court doesn't recognize. While ignoring harm that the court does recognize.

But why would a rational person do either?

 

[Silhouette]

I'm sure you misunderstand Kennedy's sentiments towards children. I believe he is concerned about ANY child currently in his interpretation "in immediate legal harm" from being denied the benefits of marriage. I don't think Kennedy wishes any child to suffer..That being said, Kennedy might want to be concerned about the untold 100s of millions of kids he might inadvertently be sentencing to psychological damage by forcing states to incentivize homes where the complimentary gender as vital parental role model is guaranteed to be missing 100% of the time....structuraly the same as single parent homes (monosexuals) That gender may be the child's own.

He specifically cites the 40,000 children in California who are the children of same sex parents. That defines the group he recognizes are harmed. Any you add to it is your imagination. Not Kennedy's findings or expressed opinion.

Harm to a child doesn't change arbitrarily. If a child is hurt by being psychologically-deprived, another child being psychologically-deprived is in no less harm than the first.

Your willingness to use children to forward your agenda is noted for the record. It is quite obvious to all but the slowest mind at this point that children only get your care and concern when its some issue you want to hold them up and play the violin for. Otherwise it's "get lost kid, you're bothering me..."

If harm must be done to some children while others receive preference, the lesser of those two evils is to choose the group that is the smallest, so that the smallest number of kids receive harm...with that number hopefully nearing or reaching zero.

Cumulative harm over time. Those will be the keywords at the next SCOTUS hearing on the matter.. and "Children are not guinea pigs"..

Over time, so many many MANY more children will become harmed by a "marriage" a state is forced to recognize that offers nothing more structurally than a single parent home, to the detriment of kids. There is no complimentary gender present for those kids who will find themselves needing that role model.

And then there's the harm to children over time with the destruction of democracy at its core: state's self-rule on questions of incentives and behaviors/lifestyles their discreet communities embrace or find repugnant. This new precedent of "lifestyles have rights" is a very very dangerous one legally. If those lifestyles are allowed to legally run roughshod over other people's freedom of religion, or over the formative environment of children when a majority finds that repugnant, then what you have with this LGBT crusade is a far more insidious harm than anyone has dared to consider.

Well, I'm daring to consider it and I hope SCOTUS is too..

 

[g5000]

Harm to a child doesn't change arbitrarily. If a child is hurt by being psychologically-deprived, another child being psychologically-deprived is in no less harm than the first.

Your willingness to use children to forward your agenda is noted for the record. It is quite obvious to all but the slowest mind at this point that children only get your care and concern when its some issue you want to hold them up and play the violin for. Otherwise it's "get lost kid, you're bothering me..."

You invented an additional harm that does not exist. Just because someone doesn't buy into your fabrication does not mean they don't care about kids.

You are despicable.

Show us the evidence a kid raised by gay parents is harmed any more than kids in single or dual parent homes.

 

[Skylar]

Harm to a child doesn't change arbitrarily.

What you assume is harm isn't necessarily so. Nor has any particular legal relevance. What Kennedy and the other USSC justices recognize as harm is relevant.

And they've cited the children of same sex parents and the harm that is caused them when the marriages of their parents aren't recognized. Any other group that you've added is yours, based on your assessment of harm. And your assessments have no relevance to the outcome of any case.

If a child is hurt by being psychologically-deprived, another child being psychologically-deprived is in no less harm than the first.

Your willingness to use children to forward your agenda is noted for the record.

That assumes that I agree with your assessment, or that your assessment is accurate. The former is definitely not true, and the evidence strongly suggests the latter is also untrue. The justices have certainly never recognized that gay marriage harms children in any way.

While they have recognized the lack of same sex marriage does harm children.

Remember, that you believe something is essentially meaningless to anyone else. Including the justices or any federal court.

 

[Skylar]

Harm to a child doesn't change arbitrarily. If a child is hurt by being psychologically-deprived, another child being psychologically-deprived is in no less harm than the first.

Your willingness to use children to forward your agenda is noted for the record. It is quite obvious to all but the slowest mind at this point that children only get your care and concern when its some issue you want to hold them up and play the violin for. Otherwise it's "get lost kid, you're bothering me..."

You invented an additional harm that does not exist. Just because someone doesn't buy into your fabrication does not mean they don't care about kids.

You are despicable.

Show us the evidence a kid raised by gay parents is harmed any more than kids in single or dual parent homes.

Oh, its far worse than that. He imagines harm that no evidence indicates exist. While ignoring tangible, measurable harm that the courts have already cited as existing.

So its an irrationality double play. Basing an opinion on imagination while imagining that all evidence that contradicts you doesn't exist.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, its far worse than that. He imagines harm that no evidence indicates exist. While ignoring tangible, measurable harm that the courts have already cited as existing.

So its an irrationality double play. Basing an opinion on imagination while imagining that all evidence that contradicts you doesn't exist.

I'm pretty sure I read in child developmental psyche 101 that depriving a child of his own gender as parental role model has statistically-demonstratable damaging effects on a child's psyche. I think there may be like 100,000 studies on that one question alone. Think: Single Parent Households.. In that respect, homosexual marriage is no different structurally than monosexual homes..

 

[Skylar]

I'm pretty sure I read in child developmental psyche 101 that depriving a child of his own gender as parental role model has statistically-demonstratable damaging effects on a child's psyche.

Just like you 'read' that Edith Windsor's question to the court was whether or not gay marriage bans were constitutional, just like you 'heard' Maddow compare Christians to white supremacists?

Until we asked you to show us. And then it turned out you didn't know what you were talking about. And were completely wrong.

You'll understand if I don't take your vague recollection of a class you never took as amounting to much.

Nor is it likely Kennedy will ignore his own assessment of harm to the children of gays and lesbians when their parents are denied marriage over your personal opinion.

 

[Montrovant]

Oh, its far worse than that. He imagines harm that no evidence indicates exist. While ignoring tangible, measurable harm that the courts have already cited as existing.

So its an irrationality double play. Basing an opinion on imagination while imagining that all evidence that contradicts you doesn't exist.

I'm pretty sure I read in child developmental psyche 101 that depriving a child of his own gender as parental role model has statistically-demonstratable damaging effects on a child's psyche. I think there may be like 100,000 studies on that one question alone. Think: Single Parent Households.. In that respect, homosexual marriage is no different structurally than monosexual homes..

Do you think that allowing same sex couples to marry will lead to many more same sex couples existing, or more same sex couples having/adopting children?

Do you think that 'depriving a child of his own gender as parental role model' is the only, or even the most important, difference between a single parent household and a married, heterosexual parents household?

Do you start any threads on this message board that don't focus on homosexuality?

 

[Syriusly]

I'm sure you misunderstand Kennedy's sentiments towards children. I believe he is concerned about ANY child currently in his interpretation "in immediate legal harm" from being denied the benefits of marriage. I don't think Kennedy wishes any child to suffer..That being said, Kennedy might want to be concerned about the untold 100s of millions of kids he might inadvertently be sentencing to psychological damage by forcing states to incentivize homes where the complimentary gender as vital parental role model is guaranteed to be missing 100% of the time....structuraly the same as single parent homes (monosexuals) That gender may be the child's own.

He specifically cites the 40,000 children in California who are the children of same sex parents. That defines the group he recognizes are harmed. Any you add to it is your imagination. Not Kennedy's findings or expressed opinion.

Harm to a child doesn't change arbitrarily. If a child is hurt by being psychologically-deprived, another child being psychologically-deprived is in no less harm than the first.

Your willingness to use children to forward your agenda is noted for the recordo..

Noted for what record?

The only one arguing to deprive children of having married parents is you.

The only one arguing for what a Justice of the Supreme Court has declared is an immediate legal harm to children is you.

Its all about you- you using children as a tool in your obsessive anti-homosexual agenda.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, its far worse than that. He imagines harm that no evidence indicates exist. While ignoring tangible, measurable harm that the courts have already cited as existing.

So its an irrationality double play. Basing an opinion on imagination while imagining that all evidence that contradicts you doesn't exist.

I'm pretty sure I read in child developmental psyche 101 that depriving a child of his own gender as parental role model has statistically-demonstratable damaging effects on a child's psyche. ..

I am pretty sure that I read in my psychology class that you are delusional.....