Federal Judge To Wisconsin: You Know 'Traditional' Marriage Was Polygamy, Right?

Wow, couldn't have asked for a better demonstration of my point. Busied yourself with quoting and discussing my first three sentences so you could ignore and avoid the 4th sentence that answers your question. Willful ignorance, hang onto it tightly.

 

What are you babbling on about now? I constantly quote court cases and the facts they reveal.

 

Yes, you do. But you never have given the slightest indication that you understand that there is a method to citing court cases and the facts they reveal. And applying that method requires some grasp of context. Dicta about child support are NOT holdings about same-sex marriage. And they do not BECOME holdings about same-sex marriage no matter how many times they are quote-mined.

The interpretations you place on the quotes you extract out of context would astonish the judge who wrote them. Fortunately, judges DO understand things like precedent, context, applicability, and intent. And they are deciding against you unanimously. Your only explanation for this is, judges are all stupid.

 

The pillar of my argument for this entire thread

and my one slip of the keyboard.

Do you really think I give a (*)(*)(*)(*) if a man of your character believes me or not?

 

Court cases regarding a right to gay marriage are not irrelevant to a discussion of the right to gay marriage. You simply need them to be irrelevant.

 

I wasn't presenting them as holdings about same sex marriage as they are holdings about the right of marriage. You would need some grasp of context within the debate but you have enough difficulty with your grasp on reality so I wouldn't expect you to grasp the context of the discussion.

 

Studies that show children born to their married mother and father do better than those who are not usually compare more objective criteria such as poverty rates, rates of juvenile delinquency, drug and alcohol abuse, teen pregnancy, HS drop outs and criminal conviction as an adult. These studies comparing children raised by heterosexual parents with children raised by homosexual parents rely upon survey questions to the parents.

 

Just trying to nail you down, which is harder than nailing down a slippery eel.

Okay I will try to parse it down so I can be sure we are in agreement of what you are saying.

This is a statement about birth and obligations:
Birth of a child obligates only two people in the world to provide and care for that child. -The woman who gave birth and the man who caused her to do so.

This I assume is you believe the purpose for marriage to be:
Encouraging marriage increases the number of children born into homes with both their mother and father present to provide and care for them and reduces the number of children with only their mother, with an absent or unknown father

So- the purpose of marriage is to promote children being born into homes where their father and mother will take care of them- i.e. procreation within marriage.

Associated with that you say the purpose of marriage is to reduce the children born outside of marriage.

I am just trying to get agreement on what your bottom line argument as to what marriage is- and why homosexuals must be excluded.

 

I'm calling shenanigans. This is just another way to justify discrimination. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we - as in, the entire human race - needs to slow down and stop procreating as much. The planet is already over-populated and the more people there are, the faster the population will increase - it's exponential, not linear.

 

Within the context of the fact situation in dispute, yes. Which is NOT the context you are porting them to, and pretending they belong there.

When a judge rules that a man who wishes to marry a woman is permitted to do so even though he owes child support payments he hasn't yet paid, the judge is not ruling that marriage applies only to opposite sexes. The judge is only ruling that the right of marriage itself trumps overdue child support payments. But as many times as you have been informed, you just can't see it. And when people point out that you carefully ignore same-sex marriage cases in favor of cases that mention marriage in general (and in passing) while discussing something else, you simply ignore every ruling, every quote, every holding, every conclusion.

But at least thanks for veryifying that you have no clue what "context" means.

 

But we understand why he dodged this much, and tried to change the subject. If he should ever hold still, he's dead meat and he knows it.

 

I have no idea what sort of demented malformed reality you're confining yourself to - it certainly isn't healthy or productive. You're views of the world are outdated, harmful, and just ... sad. Like really sad in a pitiful sort of manner. Luckily the majority of us are having to bear your brand of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) less and less. Before you know it, you'll suddenly be surrounded by married gay couples, closing in on you from every direction! Oh no! I hope you don't ever accidentally glance at two men showing a tiny bit of PDA, you might emotionally overload and try to harm yourself. Which, of course, would be a shame.

 

No one claims the judge was. LIKE I SAID it was a case regarding the right to marriage. Ill wait here while you busy yourself chasing the strawman so you can avoid the topic of discussion

 

Wow, couldn't have asked for a better demonstration of my point. Busied yourself with quoting and discussing my first three sentences so you could ignore and avoid the 4th sentence that answers your question. TWICE! Willful ignorance, hang onto it tightly.

 

The right to marriage is a right to marriage. Not to same-sex marriage, homosexual marriage, opposite-sex marriage, or the like. Rather, the court was ruling on the right to marriage. Which the court found was fundamental, and of overriding importance. Which is what everyone has been trying to tell you all long.

 

Believe me, I get it: rather than wax impotently vituperative and risk a ban, you're going the smarmy faux compassion route.

As for the underlined, before that happens I'll be surrounded by flying spaghetti monsters; but long before that I'll be surrounded by humanoids who are so emotionally invested in this lie that they'll think nothing of sending people like me to Room 101 to protect their delusion. The problem for them, of course, is that the day they murder the last of us will be the day they start devouring each other.

Yeah, brilliant. Next you'll be assuring us that c/d=pi works just as well for square circles as for round ones.

 

And while we're at it, lets enjoy the honest-Abe technique of citing unrelated court decisions to suport some other point and claiming these are dispositive, while simultaneously dismissing all relevant precedents on the grounds that the judges are activists legislating from the bench. Heads I win, tails you lose.

But I'm not the one trying to tell you these things. It's the US Constitution telling them to you. Not that you can hear either one.

 

Enjoy it all you like.

I suppose it would be interesting to know what sort of numerology you've employed to reach this conclusion, especially seeing I haven't cited a single court ruling in this thread.

 

Thank you. Those of us who appreciate legal equality for Americans are enjoying it quite a bit. I'm sure you're enjoying your fantasies about spaghetti monsters, humanoids, and being rounded up and murdered. To each his own.

And I think that's probably wise of you.

 

Yes they did. I merely quoted the text,

And not surprisingly, YOU interpreted the words to mean "marriage applies only to opposite sexes" and so you felt the need to argue that

 

dixon, this horse is long dead. In the Wisconsin case, we have a man who isn't paying child support. So the state of Wisconsin didn't want him having more children when he wasn't paying for the last ones. The only LEGAL way to do this, was to prevent him from marrying, since (1) sterilizing him is illegal; and (2) having children outside of marriage is also illegal. So the guy sued, and the court ruled that the fundamental right to marry overrides the state of Wisconsin's desire to extract child support payments.

Now, none of this has anything to do with same-sex marriage. It only says that states cannot prohibit individuals from marrying. And that's ALL it says, no matter how many times you repeat it thinking it says what you WANT it to say.

And of course, there are many cases where same-sex marriage is the actual matter being adjudicated. Why quote-mine something from a different context and pretend it says what you want, when you have so many decisions directly ABOUT what you wish to address? Could it be that your point cannot be made honestly?

 

All of course irrelevant to my point regarding the right of marriage. But irrelevancy is your favorite way to avoid the relevant.

Well, except for the part(the relevant part) that explains WHY marriage is a constitutional right. You know, the part YOU interpreted to say "marriage applies only to opposite sexes"

 

If you wish to establish the right of marriage, these cases support that right. If you wish to argue that these cases prohibit same-sex marriage, then you are simply wrong.

Agreed that it's a constitutional right. But you keep bringing up procreation as an "explanation", and that's irrelevant. And you know it.

I never said that, and neither did the courts.

 

Doesn't matter.

See the thing is you've already lost this war.

It's over. No one is buying you bullcrap.

 

According to the supreme court the right to marriage is based upon the right to procreate.