Same sex marriage

[MrPickins]

What fewer rights do they have? I am saying that adoption and marriage are different things and therefore are handled differently.

What benefit exactly? Doesn't the adoption process already vet the parents?

The denial of these federal benefits to same-sex couples brings to mind the Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2694–95 (2013), which held un-constitutional the denial of all federal marital benefits to same-sex marriages recognized by state law. The Court’s criticisms of such denial apply with even greater force to In-diana’s law. The denial “tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. [No same-sex marriages are valid in In-diana.] This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage [in Indiana, in the low-est—the unmarried—tier]. The differentiation demeans the couple … [and] humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law … makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Id. at 2694.

It’s been estimated that more than 200,000 American children (some 3000 in Indiana and about the same number in Wisconsin) are being raised by homosexuals, mainly ho-mosexual couples. Gary J. Gates, “LGBT Parenting in the United States” 3 (Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, Feb. 2013), http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/lgbt-parenting.pdf; Gates, “Same-Sex Couples in Indiana: A Demographic Summary” (Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, 2014), http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/IN-same-sex-couples-demo-aug-2014.pdf; Gates, “Same-Sex Couples in Wisconsin: A Demo-graphic Survey” (Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, Aug. 2014), http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/WI-same-sex-couples-demo-aug-2014.pdf. Gary Gates’s demographic surveys find that among couples who have children, homosexual couples are five times as likely to be raising an adopted child as heterosexual couples in Indi-ana, and two and a half times as likely as heterosexual cou-ples in Wisconsin.
If the fact that a child’s parents are married enhances the child’s prospects for a happy and successful life, as Indiana believes not without reason, this should be true whether the child’s parents are natural or adoptive. The state’s lawyers tell us that “the point of marriage’s associated benefits and protections is to encourage child-rearing environments where parents care for their biological children in tandem.” Why the qualifier “biological”? The state recognizes that family is about raising children and not just about producing them. It does not explain why the “point of marriage’s asso-ciated benefits and protections” is inapplicable to a couple’s adopted as distinct from biological children.
Married homosexuals are more likely to want to adopt than unmarried ones if only because of the many state and federal benefits to which married people are entitled. And so same-sex marriage improves the prospects of unintended children by increasing the number and resources of prospec-tive adopters. Notably, same-sex couples are more likely to adopt foster children than opposite-sex couples are. Gates, “LGBT Parenting in the United States,” supra, at 3. As of 2011, there were some 400,000 American children in foster care, of whom 10,800 were in Indiana and about 6500 in Wisconsin. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, Chil-dren’s Bureau, “How Many Children Are in Foster Care in the U.S.? In My State?”
www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/faq/foster-care4.

Consider now the emotional comfort that having married parents is likely to provide to children adopted by same-sex couples. Suppose such a child comes home from school one day and reports to his parents that all his classmates have a mom and a dad, while he has two moms (or two dads, as the case may be). Children, being natural conformists, tend to be upset upon discovering that they’re not in step with their peers. If a child’s same-sex parents are married, however, the parents can tell the child truthfully that an adult is per-mitted to marry a person of the opposite sex, or if the adult prefers as some do a person of his or her own sex, but that either way the parents are married and therefore the child can feel secure in being the child of a married couple. Conversely, imagine the parents having to tell their child that same-sex couples can’t marry, and so the child is not the child of a married couple, unlike his classmates.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...4/C:14-2388:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1412338:S:0

Seriously, you'd do yourself a favor by reading the opinion, so you don't keep making yourself look like a fool.

 

[MrPickins]

What problem is marriage solving exactly?

Again, your arguments work against heterosexual marriage as well as same-sex.

Unless you believe that sex is integrally important to marriage its pretty hard to argue that homosexuals are being discriminated against though.

That's one hell of a non-sequitur.

 

[Retro Rob]

Yeah, Retro Bob, heterosexual people engage in anal sex and all kinds of other risky sexual acts, so you're not really refuting my point.

It doesn't matter who's doing it...risky sex is risky sex...but since you were referring to gays, I just specifically focused on them.

I was refuting, broadly, your point that it doesn't matter. It does, for the reasons I mentioned.

I'm pretty sure your average straight woman wouldn't sleep with a man who admits to having anal sex with other men/women, even if he used protection, because to her, it does matter.

Most people are aware of the risks they're taking getting sexually involved with someone who participates in that sort of sexual activity, because of the history and high-risk nature of it.

It matters.

 

[JulesMaximus]

It doesn't matter who's doing it...risky sex is risky sex...but since you were referring to gays, I just specifically focused on them.

I was refuting, broadly, your point that it doesn't matter. It does, for the reasons I mentioned.

I'm pretty sure your average straight woman wouldn't sleep with a man who admits to having anal sex with other men/women, even if he used protection, because to her, it does matter.

Most people are aware of the risks they're taking getting sexually involved with someone who participates in that sort of sexual activity, because of the history and high-risk nature of it.

It matters.

What the hell does that have to do with gay marriage? Or anything for that matter?

Wait, maybe this is a Communist plot to pollute Americans' precious bodily fluids... :hmm:

 

[K1052]

I'm pretty sure your average straight woman wouldn't sleep with a man who admits to having anal sex with other men/women, even if he used protection, because to her, it does matter.

I presume you can reference your own extensive experience as a straight woman on the prowl to substantiate this claim.

 

[etrigan420]

Wait, maybe this is a Communist plot to pollute Americans' precious bodily fluids... :hmm:

I can see the Faux News headlines already:

"Red Scare over Black Water"

 

[MrPickins]

It doesn't matter who's doing it...risky sex is risky sex...but since you were referring to gays, I just specifically focused on them.

I was refuting, broadly, your point that it doesn't matter. It does, for the reasons I mentioned.

So all kinds of people have risky sex, but you're only worried when it's "the gays" that are doing it?

I'm pretty sure your average straight woman wouldn't sleep with a man who admits to having anal sex with other men/women, even if he used protection, because to her, it does matter.

You think that no straight woman has ever willingly slept with a man who had had anal sex before?

Most people are aware of the risks they're taking getting sexually involved with someone who participates in that sort of sexual activity, because of the history and high-risk nature of it.

It matters.

To you maybe. For most people, sex is sex, whether it's a hand job, blow job, vaginal, or anal.

(You do realize that all of these activities are comparatively tame?)


Admit it, you just dislike homosexuals.

I don't really care if you do, but you should really stop trying to argue your views in public. It just confirms you as a bigot, and make your religion look bad (as you openly identify as Christian on these forums).

 

[Retro Rob]

I presume you can reference your own extensive experience as a straight woman on the prowl to substantiate this claim.

All you need to do is ask average women. I've asked my wife, my 4 sisters, and I have all the evidence I need to at least speak on it.

Don't get touchy because people of your stripe are high-risk sexual partners...

 

[Retro Rob]

So all kinds of people have risky sex, but you're only worried when it's "the gays" that are doing it?

Nope.

You think that no straight woman has ever willingly slept with a man who had had anal sex before?

I said "I'm pretty sure your average" meaning there's room I could be wrong because I'm not completely sure, and "average" is not "every".

Strawman found and bypassed.

To you maybe. For most people, sex is sex, whether it's a hand job, blow job, vaginal, or anal.

I'm pretty sure you can show who these "most people" are, or at least give me a number with citations.

 

[MrPickins]

All you need to do is ask average women. I've asked my wife, my 4 sisters, and I have all the evidence I need to at least speak on it.

Don't get touchy because people of your stripe are high-risk sexual partners...

Conversely, your wife and sisters could be frigid prudes. no need to get touchy.

Also, what makes you think your sisters are giving you their honest opinion on very personal sexual matters? I find it creepy as hell that you would even ask them that kind of question.


(Not that I really believe you did.)

 

[MrPickins]

Nope.

I said "I'm pretty sure your average" meaning there's room I could be wrong because I'm not completely sure, and "average" is not "every".

Strawman found and bypassed.

Change my statement to "average woman", then. You'll still be wrong.

But, that's fine, deflect all you want.

I'm pretty sure you can show who these "most people" are, or at least give me a number with citations.

First you show me the average women who refuse to sleep with someone who has had anal sex in the past.


Edit: You know what, fuck it. Don't bother. I'm not going to argue against your "gay sex is icky, therefore immoral" logic.

 

[Retro Rob]

Change my statement to "average woman", then. You'll still be wrong.

Prove it.

First you show me the average women who refuse to sleep with someone who has had anal sex in the past.

My wife, and 4 sisters. I consider them average, but I could be wrong.

All we have to do is go ask women if they would willing sleep with a person who has anal sex. Heck, ask your wife (if you're a married man), GF, or the women in your family and get back to me.

At least, you can directly refute my claim.

 

[K1052]

All you need to do is ask average women. I've asked my wife, my 4 sisters, and I have all the evidence I need to at least speak on it.

Don't get touchy because people of your stripe are high-risk sexual partners...

I rarely see someone wallow so happily in their own self-imposed ignorance.

 

[JulesMaximus]

How exactly will marriage bolster their ability to form a stable relationship?

You missed the 50% divorce rate?

You missed the liberals who apparently have no issue with adultery?

Wait, so you're saying that it is mostly liberals who divorce? Pretty sure I can disprove that crock of shit easily.

 

[Retro Rob]

Edit: You know what, fuck it. Don't bother. I'm not going to argue against your "gay sex is icky, therefore immoral" logic.

Please, show me where I said its "icky, therefore, immoral"?

If anything, I said its "black water"-ish, which is icky.

 

[MrPickins]

Prove it.



My wife, and 4 sisters. I consider them average, but I could be wrong.

That is one hell of a sample size, let me tell you. And likely not at all biased.

All we have to do is go ask women if they would willing sleep with a person who has anal sex. Heck, ask your wife (if you're a married man), GF, or the women in your family and get back to me.

At least, you can directly refute my claim.

I don't ask intimate sexual questions of my family members (or strangers for that matter), as it is creepy as hell, like I already mentioned.

As for my wife, I already know she'll sleep with a man who has had anal sex, her husband.

Again, fuck off with your issues about "icky sex". It is not pertinent to the discussion, and you're simply using it to distract from the actual issues.

Please, show me where I said its "icky, therefore, immoral"?

If anything, I said its "black water"-ish, which is icky.

Ok, you're not in to anal sex. Is that any reason to continue the discrimination against homosexuals?


(Why is it always about sex with Conservative Christians?)

 

[SlitheryDee]

Please, show me where I said its "icky, therefore, immoral"?

If anything, I said its "black water"-ish, which is icky.

Pickens has it backwards. You started off with the assumption that it is immoral. All these other arguments stem from that. We all know where that initial assumption comes from I think. Until you budge on that, there is no helping you, no matter how many of these tertiary points you are making get shot down.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

All you need to do is ask average women. I've asked my wife, my 4 sisters, and I have all the evidence I need to at least speak on it.

I talked to five women, so I'm comfortable speaking for 158 million of them.

 

[Retro Rob]

I talked to five women, so I'm comfortable speaking for 158 million of them.

You are?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

SSM will become the law of the land as any laws aimed at preventing it violates the US Constitution. If you don't agree, it's best that you get over it and move on.

 

[JulesMaximus]

You are?

No, you are, stupid. Try to keep up mkay?

 

[SlickSnake]

You guys have the wrong attitude. I dont want to live in a world that makes no sense. That husband & husband / wife & wife thing makes no sense and its strange.

Call it a gay union and be happy with that.

Says the guy who uses a scary looking mustached Village People avatar...

Macho, macho man much?

And you must be pretty strange to be obsessing over it if it don't concern you.

And most of the world makes no sense, or did you just suddenly wake up from a hundred million years slumber where dinosaurs and Sleestaks ruled the Earth?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You are?

Your utter lack of self-awareness is ceaselessly astonishing.

 

[zinfamous]

He who does not want a gay marriage, should not get one.

 

[SlickSnake]

To me, its seems crazy and nonsensical. Unions are fine just dont get in my face with it.

Furthermore, the feds need to keep their noses out of states rights and let the people decide what is right or wrong.

This story is what got me thinking about it this morning:

I'm pretty sure you feel the same way about slavery and mixed marriages concerning states rights and the Feds, too.

And your Confederate flags are still a great substitute for curtains while you hide out from the Revenuers in your moonshine shack in the hills of the redneck woods.

And don't hurt yourself thinking too hard, because it would be a tragic loss to fellow inbreeders everywhere if you fried your last braincell.