Pa. governor won't appeal ruling legalizing gay marriage

Discussion in 'Gay & Lesbian Rights' started by ProgressivePatriot, Jun 1, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bclark

    bclark Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,627
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Why does one need certificate from the government to 'not be discriminated against'? That more of a stretch than your previous statements. The reason that government is supposed to watch after couples is because there is an economic interest to the general populous to doing so. Indigent children that are not looked after cause issues to the general populous. This is such a problem that it often requires government intervention, (thus marriage under the law.) Now, the benefit to society of having two parents raising children is such that it is often such a boon to society that it is often incentivized by the government.

    If you don't believe in the benefits of children having parents, go to an urban wreckage such as Detroit, Chicago, Oakland, or Compton, and look at the disaster. These places are some of the most dangerous places on earth in spite of having the 'toughest gun control laws around.

    You seem to be fixated on the question of why a few more people can't horn in on the incentives that we give to people to stay married. The real question you should be asking is why don't we do more to look at the breakdown of the existing family.

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1995/03/bg1026nbsp-the-real-root-causes-of-violent-crime
     
  2. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    All of which would apply equally to same gender marriage.

    Let me give an example- two lesbians fall in love, buy a home together, get a sperm donation, and one of them has a child. Later the non-biological parent abandons the family.

    a) If they are not married, then the biological mother becomes the single mom and her child is more likely to be indigent. Beyond that, since they were not married, they cannot use marriage court to ensure that the mother and child can remain in the home, or that there is an orderly disolution of joint property.
    b) if they were married, then the biological mother becomes a single mom- but the other parent owes child support- and the state can enforce that- providing more financial security to the child. And since they could be divorced, the mother and child would be more likely to be able to retain a stable home.

    If we as a society promote marriage in order to protect children, then that is just another reason to make same gender marriage equitable.
    You seem to be fixated on excluding homosexuals from the incentives we provide to heterosexuals.

    If we really cared about promoting the existing family- indeed we would take actions to do that- prohibiting same gender couples from marrying does nothing to accomplish that.
     
  3. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,816
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Your professed concern for children rings hollow. If you cared about children, you would care about the millions who are in the care of a gay or lesbian parent who would benefit greatly from having two married parents, if only he or she could marry a partner and if each could adopt the others children.
     
  4. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your professed concern for children rings hollow. If you cared about children, you would care about the millions who are in the care of closely related adults, who outnumber children in the care of a gay or lesbian parent, who would benefit greatly from having two married parents, if only he or she could marry a partner and if each could adopt the others children. Children aren't your concern, promoting homosexuality is your only goal.
     
  5. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOLOLOL No it wouldn't, silly. Heterosexual sex has a strong, natural tendency to lead to procreation. Homosexuals sex has absolutely no tendency to lead to artificial insemination.

    Always amusing to see the level of hypocrisy required in the gay marriage debate. So to review, Marriage limited to heterosexual couples because only heterosexual couples procreate, is unconstitutional because not all heterosexual couples have the ability or willingness to procreate. And your solution is to selectively extend marriage to gay couples, because they might decide adopt or use invitro fertilization???? Suddenly, over inclusiveness, the fact that not all homosexual couples adopt or use artificial insemination, isn't even an issue when gays are concerned. And to top it off, you would exclude ALL closely related couples even when they are of the same sex, because of the potential of genetic effects of procreation.
     
  6. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ??? Traditional marriage would be any two consenting adults, not prevented from marrying by any other provisions of the law.
     
  7. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hmmm that is nice. I was speaking about what the court did.

    The court extended marriage to all same-sex couples- that would be any two consenting adults, not prevented from marrying by any other provisions of the law.
     
  8. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's nice, I was talking about what traditional marriage does. Its about improving the wellbeing of children while gay marriage is only about promoting homosexuality for the benefit of the homosexuals.
     
  9. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We arent' talking about sex- we are talking about marriage. And like I said in response to this quote:

    The reason that government is supposed to watch after couples is because there is an economic interest to the general populous to doing so. Indigent children that are not looked after cause issues to the general populous. This is such a problem that it often requires government intervention, (thus marriage under the law.) Now, the benefit to society of having two parents raising children is such that it is often such a boon to society that it is often incentivized by the government. ]

    And as I said- all would apply to same gender marriage. If there is a benefit to society of having two parents raising children- then it would- and should be of exactly equal benefit to the children being raised by a same gender couple.

    I find the hypocrisy of the anti-gay activists rather sad than amusing- but indeed there is much hypocrisy by those who argue in favor of discrimination against same gender couples.



    .[/QUOTE]Marriage limited to heterosexual couples because only heterosexual couples procreate,.[/QUOTE]

    That is the hypocritical claim of the anti-gay activists. That argument has been rejected by every Federal court as nonsensical.

    .[/QUOTE] is unconstitutional because not all heterosexual couples have the ability or willingness to procreate.[/QUOTE].

    No- it is unconstitutional because the law discriminates against homosexual couples- for many reasons- one of which is hypocritical argument that marriage is about procreation, when clearly marriage has no procreation requirements.

    .[/QUOTE]And your solution is to selectively extend marriage to gay couples, because they might decide adopt or use invitro fertilization???? .[/QUOTE]

    The solution to ending discrimination is to end discrimination- which would be to treat a gay couple like a heterosexual couple.

    .[/QUOTE]Suddenly, over inclusiveness, the fact that not all homosexual couples adopt or use artificial insemination, isn't even an issue when gays are concerned. .[/QUOTE]

    As I said- the issue is ending unconstitutional discrimination. The Anti-gay activists argue like you do here that homosexuals should be excluded from marriage because homosexual couples cannot reproduce with each other- but clearly marriage doesn't require that since heterosexuals are not required, or even expected to reproduce- or in the case of Wisconsin first cousin- are specifically forbidden to be able to reproduce before being allowed to marry.

    .[/QUOTE]And to top it off, you would exclude ALL closely related couples even when they are of the same sex, because of the potential of genetic effects of procreation.[/QUOTE]

    You keep claiming would do this- and as i keep pointing out- that is just another of your blatant lies. I have never said I would exclude anyone- you just keep lying and saying I would.

    I- and the courts in Wisconsin and Pennsyvlania were not addressing the issue of any couples other than same gender couples, who would not be excluded by marriage other than because of their gender.

    You keep bringing up other people not included in the law suits- because they are strawmen you want to talk about- because the anti-gay marriage position is so openly hypocritical.

    I wonder what makes the issue of gay marriage so important to you that you are willing to repeatedly lie over it?
     
  10. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That is what the anti-gay activists say.

    Homosexual couples have children- and are raising children. If marriage is important to the wellbeing of children, then it is important to the wellbeing of the children of gay couples also.

    Your argument therefore- that marriage is about improving the wellbeing of children- and also opposing gay marriage- means that you are arguing that the children being raised by gay parents do not deserve to have their wellbeing improved.
     
  11. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its what the courts say.

     
  12. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ???? Its important to children in that it puts the childs biological parents in the home with the child. Biological parents, the only two people in the world obligated by law to provide and care for the child. A benefit that doesn't exist when a child must first be separated from at least one of those parents in order to be with a homosexual couple
     
  13. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,816
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Bovine excrement. The child was not separated from a bio parent BERCAUSE of same sex marriage.
     
  14. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Im not sure who "the child" is but I didn't claim it was "BERCAUSE of same sex marriage" and instead simply stated that it requires it. Only a heterosexual couple can be biological parents of their children.
     
  15. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,816
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Irrelevant ! Not an argument against marriage equality. You just keep inserting you foot deeper and deeper down your own gullet with each passing post
     
  16. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If she wants to be in a lesbian "couple", that generally requires the absence of the father in the home.

    In any case, a child who comes to be with a any couple excluded from marriage by whatever means is entitled to the security and benefits of having married parents. But of course youre not really concerned about the child and instead only concerned about the "gay couple".

    Actually if you just compare the percentage of children born to married biological parents who have the benefit of both their mother and father in the home, to the much lower percentage of children born to an unmarried biological mother who have the benefit of both their mother and father in the home, clearly the birth mother being married to the biological father does just that.
    Marriage is limited to men and women because biological parents are always made up of 1 man and 1 woman. Without them the child has only the hope that someone else will voluntarily step in to assume the parental obligations. ANYONE could volunteer to do so. Gay people NO MORE capable than anyone else. There would be no justification for such a governmental preference for those who happen to be gay. Their inability to have children of their own doesnt create an obligation upon government to give them a preference.
     
  17. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Yeah. Children born to an unmarried mother are much more likely to be indigent because the only other person in the world obligated by law to provide for her child, the father is absent or unknown. That's why government intervenes to encourage all women to be married to that single person BEFORE she gives birth. Children born to mothers married to their fathers have lower rates of poverty, juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal convictions as an adult, when compared to children born to unmarried mothers.
    Since all the mothers are women, and all the fathers are men, that's who government encourages to marry in traditional marriage. Its just the gays and their delicate as a flower sensibilities that leads them to think this is all instead just some nefarious plot to "disparage and injure" homosexuals. Really is absurd when you look at it.

    Actually, it has no application whatsoever.
     
  18. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,816
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Copy and past. Copy and past.Copy and past. You do realize that you have no allies here? Even Sam often questions your inane clap trap. His problem is religion. What is yours ?You like being abused don't you? YES! That's what it is!!
     
  19. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't you know? They're going to have to hump each other in front of the clerk before they can get their license.
     
  20. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    By definition every time you use the phrase

     
  21. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You all cozy in the middle of the herd sheep?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Not sure of your point. Others whine when I don't quote their entire post and you whine because I do.
     
  22. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just as it makes no difference with an opposite sex marriage. Their claim that marriages limitation to men and women is intended to "disparage and injure" homosexuals is just a fiction they needed to make their arguments.
     
  23. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Marriage is unequal by design, Treating the married differently than the unmarried. And marriage equality would involve marriage for any two consenting adults excluded by law from marriage, not just those who happen to be gay. At least I can justify the inequality of traditional marriage while you have no justification for the inequality of "gay marriage"
     
  24. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think they probably instead do it the same way they've supposedly excluded homosexuals for thousands of years from opposite sex marriage.
     
  25. TexMexChef

    TexMexChef Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2014
    Messages:
    2,333
    Likes Received:
    503
    Trophy Points:
    83
    "Marriage is unequal by design, Treating the married differently than the unmarried"
    This statement is ridiculous and doesn't even make sense.

    Just because benefits are given to married folk doesn't not make marriage "unequal" in any shape or form to the unmarried...that is asinine.

    You are grasping for black straws in a dark room with your ridiculous reasoning.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page