A Simple Question for Those Are Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

lol, go ahead and post a peer reviewed paper which discredits it. Your baseless declarations are meaningless.

While you're at it, go ahead and post your peer reviewed evidence which discredits these other 33 peer reviewed studies, which also show same sex parents are as good or better than opposite sex parents...........

http://theconversation.com/in-families-with-same-sex-parents-the-kids-are-all-right-42605

 

The biological mother and father joined together to provide and care for the child is as old as civilization itself.

 

So is homosexuality.

 

Nope, they rejected the arguments that traditional marriage is discrimination on the basis of sex and instead declared it to be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

Nope. The terms homosexual and heterosexual were invented in 1869 by a guy named Kertbeny.

 

nope

 

and yet there were homosexuals going back to the beginning of recorded human history.

 

Nope. This modern concept of homosexuality as an immutable, inherent trait of the individual was invented by the Psychiatric community.

 

Lol, they have been around since recorded human history.

It's always existed. We gave it a name a few centuries ago. They have been around since recorded human history.

 

Nope, they diddled little boys but still married and had children with their wives. Pedophillia and pederasty have been around forever but those aren't inherent immutable traits of the individual either.

 

And homosexuals have been around since the beginning of recorded human history. This is a demonstrable fact.

Homosexuality is an immutable trait of the individual, and has been around since the beginning of recorded human history.

 

Glad to see you have completely given up on staying even remotely on topic, for anyone not familiar with this tactic it means they have run out of excuses. Homosexuality has existed for longer than marriage has. All of this is irrelevant to modern day same sex marriage.

Third time I have asked, you seem to be unable to answer: What governmental interest is served by allowing an elderly couple with no children to marry while simultaneously denying a young stable homosexual couple with children?

 

Revealing that you haven't yet demonstrated this

 

Government cant know which couples will procreate, they only know that all who do, will be heterosexual couples. Or as the Washington Supreme court put it-

In addition, within limits, a statute generally does not fail rational basis review on the grounds of over- or under-inclusiveness;[a] classification does not fail rational-basis review because it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequity.

But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally
linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the
only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple. And the link
between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couples willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf

 

You keep committing this double failure of facts. The producing of a child has nothing to do with the ability of the producing individuals' ability to provide for its well being, nor does the lack of the caregivers' genetic link to the child prevent them from being able to provide for the child's well being. Being able to procreate and being able to provide for a child's well being are not automatically linked. Thus not an argument for the prohibition of same sex marriage.

Additionally, if two individuals of the same sex are married and the is a child in the household, then they child is not in a single parent household. They only way that holds true is if you specify that the step parent doesn't count, and then that would have to hold true for opposite sexed marriages as well where there is a step parent.

Furthermore, if we go with the assertion that same sex married couples don't produce offspring, then there won't be a child to be falsely claimed as the child of a single mother or father. Curious how you never talk about single fathers. I was one once. Methinks thou hast a bias.

 

If the government is not worried about those who are married but not producing, and the argument is that same sex couples don't produce children, then the government is not worried about same sex couples being married. Thus no legitimate concern to ban SSM.

 

Because gender is not supposed to be part of the law, then you are not supposed to be saying that a person can only marry a woman or only marry a man. They must be allowed to marry an individual, specifically a consenting adult to account for the ability to give consent.

 

So is non biologically related people accepting a child to provide and care for. You still have not made an argument as to why same sexed people should not be allowed to obtain a legal marriage. You keep going off on topics not automatically linked to marriage.

 

Interesting, he invented a word to describe something that has been around since recorded history for which there were other words and terms in other languages.

 

I read your linked article, and I read many of the links within it. You should have read it. It does not support your claim that same sex parents are as good or better than heterosexual parents. It does not even address that question. Next time, actually read what you link.

 

The government absolutely knows an elderly couple cannot reproduce. You quoted one courts opinion, one that was disagreed upon by both several trial courts prior to the ruling, the district court of appeals, and ultimately SCOTUS. Since you are having difficulty understanding what that means, this argument lost in the vast majority of courts - posting defeated court arguments is an inadequate response.

So I ask again: What governmental interest is served by allowing an elderly couple with no children to marry while simultaneously denying a young stable homosexual couple with children?

 

The study basically points to the fact that one of the major issues faced by children of same sex parents are bigots. Bigots are the problem with all of this; they don’t want gay couples to marry because “reasons”, they don’t want them having children because they don’t grow up in “perfect homes” (of course ignoring the 65% heterosexual divorse rate and the even higher adultery rate), and pointing to the stigma caused by bigots as reasons why the children often struggle.

“People may not agree with gay marriage on moral or religious grounds. But the argument that it harms children does not stack up against current evidence.” ”Children raised by same-sex parents do better when they are living in a city or country that is more socially progressive and accepting of homosexuality.”

Bigots are the issue that need to be banned and punished, not homosexuals and not same sex marriage.

 

No one claimed it did. I'll wait here while you dive for refuge into that strawman

No one claimed it did. Birth of a child obligates the mother who gave birth and the father who caused her to do so and no one else. Without one or both of them the child has only the hope that someone would voluntarily assume those responsibilities. The most common alternative to a child being born into a home with both his mother and father is a single mother on her own with an absent or even unknown father. Encouraging men and women to marry helps reduce the # of children in such a situation. Encouraging two gay guys to marry does not.

Not an argument Ive ever made. Is it all warm and comfy wrapped up in your blanket of strawmen?

Additionally, if two individuals of the same sex are married and the is a child in the household, then they child is not in a single parent household. They only way that holds true is if you specify that the step parent doesn't count, and then that would have to hold true for opposite sexed marriages as well where there is a step parent.

Furthermore, if we go with the assertion that same sex married couples don't produce offspring, then there won't be a child to be falsely claimed as the child of a single mother or father. Curious how you never talk about single fathers. I was one once. Methinks thou hast a bias.[/QUOTE]

 

I said the government doesn't know which couples WILL procreate and made no claims about knowing which couples will not procreate. But of course, THATS why you want to go there.

 

Those studies are a joke. Other studies have shown that children born to single mothers have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquency, drug and alcohol abuse, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts, and criminal conviction as an adult, when compared to children born into a home with their mother and father. These gay studies tend to survey the Lesbian couples to determine what great parents they are, with none of the above factors investigated