What is wrong with the Supreme Court, another week of justice denied.

[CrackRabbit]

I have come out multiple times in favor of no-fault divorce including I believe in this very thread.

So to me at least the solution to marriages ending in divorce is obvious.

A divorce is a divorce no matter if there is fault or not.
The kids still end up in a single parent environment.
Nice attempt to dodge the question btw, I'll give you 4/10 for effort.

 

[werepossum]

Biology does that. Two men/women cannot have a child together. Come on now even kids who get "abstinence-only" sex education learn that much.

Biology USE TO prohibit gays from having children. Now two men or two women can easily have children together, if they have the itch and they have the scratch, through surrogates, egg or sperm donors, or adoption. And probably the highest number of children in gay households come from divorce. But through various and sundry means, many gays now have children. What then?

EDIT: Oops, Darwin beat me to it.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Unless you are willing to prohibit gays from having children, this is an argument FOR gay marriage. Some gays are going to bring in children from a previous straight relationship, others will adopt, still others will use surrogates or in vitro to have their own. Unless you are willing to prohibit all these things - including literally ripping children from the arms of gay parents - or can turn gays straight, this will continue. With gay marriage prohibited, all these children are inherently born to and/or raised by single parents, for we deny them the security and prosperity of a married couple home. If you believe that marriage strengthens a couple's bond, lessens the chance of a split, provides additional security to children, and thereby lessens a child's chance of growing up in poverty - the highest predictor of a failed life in many forms - how can you support withholding this from children of gays?

When I was young I thought gays were completely and bizarrely different from us normal folk, aberrations (if not abominations!) not to be trusted, and was very much against allowing gays to marry, adopt, teach, etc. I never knew one openly gay person; it just wasn't done in rural Tennessee in the 70s, and frankly we doubted that such behavior was more than a handful of people (mostly in California.) Part of this was getting caught up in the S/M scene in Atlanta at a young age and seeing some bisexual people who were, um, pretty messed up, and extrapolating how messed up would be someone who was actually gay rather than bi. It took three friends, a co-worker who was patently a great guy and none of those things but who was gay and a great lesbian couple, to disabuse me of this notion. (If I have known only three gay people and they are all great folks, obviously either my position on gays is defective or my knowledge of statistics is faulty.) Yet even then, as a redneck from the deep woods with all the ignorance and callow certainty of youth, the children of gay marriage bothered me. How could I be pro-family and yet anti-gay marriage? My solution at the time was to simply not think about it and to assume these children were a vanishingly small sample probably best handled by the government. After all, I didn't know any children with gay parents; how many could there possibly be?

Today we don't have that luxury. With surrogates and in vitro and widespread divorce there are many, many children with gay parents. We have to take a side. Are we pro-family and pro-marriage? Or are we anti-gay? The cost of being anti-gay is to deny all these children the security of a married home when absent government discrimination, some would have that security. That's a high price to pay for maintaining the illusion of traditional America, and it's the worst kind of price - the kind we can make someone else pay.

Well said.

 

[nehalem256]

So children from previous straight relationships, adoption, in vitro, surrogates, etc.... are all really just made up and never actually happen?

And in which of those cases do 2 men procreate?

 

[nehalem256]

A divorce is a divorce no matter if there is fault or not.
The kids still end up in a single parent environment.
Nice attempt to dodge the question btw, I'll give you 4/10 for effort.

There is a significant difference between getting divorced because your spouse beats you silly, and because you are "unhappy". And guess which reason accounts for most divorces?

 

[fskimospy]

There is a significant difference between getting divorced because your spouse beats you silly, and because you are "unhappy". And guess which reason accounts for most divorces?

My parents got divorced because they were unhappy and it was the single greatest act of parenting they ever did for me. My live was vastly improved. The idea that they could have been welded together by the law for life is terrifying.

Every time I think you've maxed out on shitty opinions you seem to come up with new ones.

 

[werepossum]

Well said.

Thank you.

 

[actuarial]

No reason why those things shouldn't be able to be handled with a simple contract. You could update the .gov when you enter into a civil union contract of sorts so that survivor benefits are passed, division of property is already handled with contracts if you have a pre-nup and frankly would be much better if this was standard.

So are there ANY restrictions on civil union contracts?

If there is no pre-nup, then how do you divide property? How do you even determine if the property division laws apply?

You'd end up with the same set of rules just using the word 'civil union' instead of marriage. Seems that your objection is to the usage of the word marriage in a law.

 

[actuarial]

And in which of those cases do 2 men procreate?

Who said two men had to procreate? Either it's about children being raised by married parents, or its not. I'm not sure, given your 'think of the children' melodrama, why you'd try to have more children raised by single parents.

If a lesbian gets artificially inseminated, wouldn't you rather her be married to another woman than raise that child single? At least so long as you think child poverty is a bad thing.

 

[DCal430]

I am shocked just shocked, the court has decided to hear the cases. This isn't good at all. Totally wrong decision.

 

[Retro Rob]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/07/supreme-court-will-tackle-same-sex-marriage/?hpt=hp_c1

Hmm...

 

[nehalem256]

Who said two men had to procreate? Either it's about children being raised by married parents, or its not. I'm not sure, given your 'think of the children' melodrama, why you'd try to have more children raised by single parents.

If a lesbian gets artificially inseminated, wouldn't you rather her be married to another woman than raise that child single? At least so long as you think child poverty is a bad thing.

Unmarried people should not be able get artificially inseminated. Problem solved. In fact unlike your "solution" mine deals with the problem of single heterosexual people being artificially inseminated as well.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Unmarried people should not be able get artificially inseminated. Problem solved. In fact unlike your "solution" mine deals with the problem of single heterosexual people being artificially inseminated as well.

And gay people can't get married, therefore gay people would never have the option of artificial insemination, because God knows we can't have them spreading their worthless "queer" genes to innocent offspring. But gays can still adopt children. How do we put a stop to that injustice? Or what about heterosexual couples who procreate within the confines of marriage but then get divorced because one of them was a sneaky gay saboteur all along? Surely we must have some way of dealing with that. Because obviously the world will only be true and good when only married heterosexual couples are able to produce and raise offspring.

 

[nehalem256]

Or what about heterosexual couples who procreate within the confines of marriage but then get divorced because one of them was a sneaky gay saboteur all along? Surely we must have some way of dealing with that.

So wait a minute gay people can choose to be straight?

Because obviously the world will only be true and good when only married heterosexual couples are able to produce and raise offspring.

Only heterosexual couples can reproduce.

2 men or 2 women cannot reproduce together.

 

[GoPackGo]

I am shocked just shocked, the court has decided to hear the cases. This isn't good at all. Totally wrong decision.

So you want Prop 8 and other anti-gay marriage laws upheld?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

So wait a minute gay people can choose to be straight?



Only heterosexual couples can reproduce.

2 men or 2 women cannot reproduce together.

I considered adding a postscript to my earlier post indicating that it was intended as satire, but since it was so blatantly obvious that common houseplants could correctly identify it as satire, I figured the warning was unnecessary. So, congratulations, I guess, for being just stupid enough to not understand basic literary devices, but just not stupid enough to still somehow manage to figure out how to post your inane bullshit on the internet. You are utterly irredeemable as a partner in a dialogue, for while you certainly post the occasional original thought (such as mandatory abortions), they are so absolutely insane that they merit no serious consideration or rebuttal. Everything else you post merely boils down to misogyny or bigotry, and is frankly boring. You offer nothing of value to anyone on these boards, and if there were anyone captaining this ship, you would have been thrown overboard before we ever left port.

Good day to you.

 

[CrackRabbit]

So you want Prop 8 and other anti-gay marriage laws upheld?

No, he is afraid the USSC will overrule the lower court ruling that struck down Prop 8 and parts of DOMA.
It is kind of a wild card with the court's current makeup.

 

[GoPackGo]

No, he is afraid the USSC will overrule the lower court ruling that struck down Prop 8 and parts of DOMA.
It is kind of a wild card with the court's current makeup.

My Guess:

5-4 Prop 8, DOMA are Unconstitutional.

Re: 14th Ammendment

Making laws across the country against it null and void.

 

[lopri]

There was no way the SCOTUS could duck the issue of DOMA now that there are 9 states (plus DC) allow same-sex couples to marry. Although I think they should have skipped or postponed the Prop. 8 case. That case is just too messy, and in any case Californians may work it out themselves in the near future without intervention from the SCOTUS.

Still, Justices kept every option available to them, including ways to avoid deciding the merits, in both cases. I can't wait to read Justice Scalia's (hopefully) dissent. His dissent in Lawrence v. Texas is a classic.

 

[Wreckem]

Based on their orders it looks like they might try to kick the can and not settle it once and for all.

Its either going to be 5-4 gay marriage bans are unconstitutional period. Or its going to be a 5-4 stop gap-kick the can opinion.

 

[actuarial]

Unmarried people should not be able get artificially inseminated. Problem solved. In fact unlike your "solution" mine deals with the problem of single heterosexual people being artificially inseminated as well.

The difference is your solution takes away rights.

 

[nehalem256]

The difference is your solution takes away rights.

The difference is my solution solves the actual problem.

And I don't see how there can be a right to another person's sperm.

 

[Retro Rob]

Marriage is not a right... I wish we'd stop framing it as such, or if truly was, an adult can have the "right" to marry a child.

It's more along the lines of if a person has the right to decide "who" to marry and that can be done on a local, State by State level.

Whom one decides to marry is a personal choice -- stop trying to make people recognize and accept your choice.

 

[Wreckem]

Marriage is not a right... I wish we'd stop framing it as such, or if truly was, an adult can have the "right" to marry a child.

It's more along the lines of if a person has the right to decide "who" to marry and that can be done on a local, State by State level.

Whom one decides to marry is a personal choice -- stop trying to make people recognize and accept your choice.

SCotUS has said otherwise in-regards to marriage being a right. They have repeatedly called marriage a basic fundamental right and protected by the 14th amendment.

People will never be forced to accept other peoples gay marriages. Many people still dont accept interracial marriages. Bigots all the same. The states should recognize gay marriage and not be allowed to ban them. And when DOMA gets struck down they WILL be forced to accept other states gay marriages even if they don't license gay marriages in their state.

 

[Retro Rob]

People will never be forced to accept other peoples gay marriages. Many people still dont accept interracial marriages. Bigots all the same. The states should recognize gay marriage and not be allowed to ban them. And when DOMA gets struck down they WILL be forced to accept other states gay marriages even if they don't license gay marriages in their state.

Well, good for them.

Not accepting same sex marriage is not bigotry. Not accepting a person's personal choice isnt rejecting the person. Race is another issue. I can't personally choose to be white or black or whatever, while I can choose who I marry. False equivalency.