Pennsylvania gay marriage ban struck down-

Prohibiting gays from marrying is discrimination against gays. Period.

And since we haven't reached that bridge yet, you don't want us to cross THIS one. We get it - it doesn't matter WHAT excuse you dream up, or how dishonest you must be. And it's not working. Soon you will live in a nation where more people can marry than used to be the case, those people will be happy, and everyone else will be unaffected. Why is that so awful?

 

And as we have often pointed out- the way law suits work is that people sue for their own cause. This case has to do with a same gender couple.

If you want to promote the lawsuit of your grannie and single mother, you can.

We are saying it isn't part of this lawsuit, and isn't part of the argument.

You only want it to be part of the argument in order to promote discrimination against homosexuals.

 

Marriage is being redefined, in that case. Soon, single consenting adults will be able to marry the partner of their choice all over the country. You didn't read any of the court decisions. In fact, your idiotic rationalization has been actually presented in courts, and the courts laughed it away. The "right" to marry ONLY people you don't want to marry is not a right at all.

 

By definition you are wrong.

 

explain why i'm wrong.

 

Yep. This is the "look over there at something irrelevant" argument, which (let's face it) is one of his more honest arguments. Maybe some day, if there is enough demand for grandmothers to marry their daughters, someone will bring up such a case in court. It might be interesting. But right now, it's not the issue.

 

Read ANY of the court decisions. They all say this, and they all say it in basically the same way. Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. The right to marry is a constitutionally protected right. But currently, the "definition of marriage" is what is embodied in all of the laws, rules, and precedents concerning marriage. None of which have to change at all, by extending this right to people formerly excluded for emotional reasons.

 

Excellent and spot on analysis

And this is too

You and all who are opposed to gay marriage and who claims that they are concerned for the welfare of children are liars. No matter how many times you profess your concern for the wellbeing of children, it remains crystal clear that the only thing that your interested in is justifying your bigotry

Exactly correct.

- - - Updated - - -

I have explained exactly why before- why should I bother to do so again since you apparently can't remember when I addressed your exact same claim the last time?

 

?????. Since the benefit is fewer children with single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers, there is no such benefit to be gained in the case of same sex couples. They don't produce any children.

???? That's because they do not reproduce. Are you ever going to get around to pointing to some inconsistency?

??????Because children born to married mothers and fathers are more likely to have the benefit of both their mother and father in the home, when compared to children born to single mothers, OF COURSE. One needs to only look at the black portion of the population in the US to see proof of this. With a LOWER marriage rate among blacks and an even higher birth rate, they have the results of the majority of black children now born to single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers with higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquency, drug and alcohol use, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal conviction as an adult. Just like the white children born to single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers. While in the gay segment of the population, no children are produced, OF COURSE.

No, its because it is a physical impossibility. On accident or on purpose

????? They already have two parents. And in the case of the additional benefits of having "married" parents, that would apply in the case of any two consenting adults with children in the home. Probably more children being cared for by two closely related adults in the home right now, than have ever been provided for by a gay couple. Just isn't anything special about two consenting adults who happen to have gay sex with each other that could warrant such preferential treatment. Heterosexual couples aren't encouraged to marry because they have sex. They are encouraged to do so because when heterosexual couples have sex, children are frequently the result.

Oh contraire. I am the one who calls for marriage to be extended to the single mother and grandmother raising their children /grandchildren for over a decade, because of my "concern for the wellbeing of children". And ANY other two consenting adults who have joined together to provide and care for children. While YOU on the other hand would deny their children those benefits, all so the gays can feel equal to the heterosexuals. All having absolutely nothing to do with the wellbeing of children.

Not saying any such thing. Procreation isn't "irrelevant" to inhibiting procreation. Knowing that only men and women engaging in sexual relations leads to procreation is vital to determine how best to inhibit it.

There are no inconsistencies and only your inability to understand.

 

Why shouldn't polygamy be legal?

 

Why are you bringing polygamy into a lawsuit about same gender marriage?

If you want to argue for polygamy to be legalized, I would suggest you start another thread for that purpose.

 

I'll say it again : No matter how many times you profess your concern for the wellbeing of children, it remains crystal clear that the only thing that your interested in is justifying your bigotry. Please explain how depriving millions of children the security of married parents shows yopur concern for them

 

If we want to encourage couples to get married in order to raise their children, then of course we should encourage same gender marriage also.

I mean if there was any legitimate argument you were trying to make about marriage being for the general benefit to the state regarding children.

 

Because some people argue that polygamy=equal marriage rights.

- - - Updated - - -

Same gender couples can't have children.

 

Horse Excrement!

 

Gays can't have biological children with each other.

 

You don't give a rats ass about the children and claiming that you do makes you a shameless liar!

 

Oh contraire. I am the one who calls for marriage to be extended to the single mother and grandmother raising their children /grandchildren for over a decade, because of my "concern for the wellbeing of children". And ANY other two consenting adults who have joined together to provide and care for children. While YOU on the other hand would deny their children those benefits, all so the gays can feel equal to the heterosexuals. All having absolutely nothing to do with the wellbeing of children.

 

SO WHAT?? Are children who are not with there biological parents less worthy of the security of having married parents??!! Are they inferior in some way? Should they be penalized for having a gay parent? ANSWER THAT and cut the crap.

 

If some people jump off a cliff- do you jump off a cliff also? As I said if you want to argue for polygamy, I suggest that you start your own thread.

But they do.

Seriously don't you know that there are thousands and thousands of children being raised by same gender couples all over America?

Why do you think that children raised by opposite gender couples deserve married parents- but children raised by same gender couples do not deserve married parents?

Let me put it another way-

Do you believe that children benefit from having their parents being married?

If you believe that, then there is no logical reason to deny the children of same gender couples that benefit.

 

Oh contraire. I am the one who calls for marriage to be extended to the single mother and grandmother raising their children /grandchildren for over a decade, because of my "concern for the wellbeing of children". And ANY other two consenting adults who have joined together to provide and care for children. While YOU on the other hand would deny their children those benefits, all so the gays can feel equal to the heterosexuals. All having absolutely nothing to do with the wellbeing of children.

 

And I have no objection to your desire to extend marriage to that single mother and grandmother. I have never said, nor even hinted that I would ever object to your campaign to extend benefits to the single mom and grannie.

So, can I put you down on the record as supporting same gender marriage now?

 

All children without their biological parents are equally worthy, NOT just those who happen to be with "gay parent"s. Not sure what that does for your arguments for gay marriage.

 

You have never explained exactly how a child would benefit from his or her mother being allowed to marry the grandmother since they are already a family.

 

Every single time that you insist that gays be given the right to marry.