You’ve answered your own question. the government has constructed the best possible environment in which those who can compete in the Olympics have certain advantages over those who can’t.
How? What advantage did they have that they didn’t before?
How has banning one legged asmatics from running on a different path had any affect at all on the athletes running on another path that didn’t even know the others were there?
Did the law create more opportunity for great runners?
Did the law eliminate an obstruction for great runners?
Explain to me how the new law created a better environment?
Didn’t you write something about the two legged runners had their own paths? I’m not sure, I didn’t quite get the whole thing.
Can you answer a question without a question?
I said the 2 legged runners happen to run on one path and the one legged hard breathers go ahead and run on another and the 2 don’t intersect unless one makes it happen. I didn’t say either was legally bound or forced to choose either of those paths. Do I really need to clearly spell out what that analogy means with regard to straight and homosexuals?
Come on, play along and answer my questions, please? For fun?
How? What advantage did they have that they didn’t before?
How has banning one legged asmatics from running on a different path had any affect at all on the athletes running on another path that didn’t even know the others were there?
Did the law create more opportunity for great runners?
Did the law eliminate an obstruction for great runners?
Because, according to Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, (that DOMA attempts to subvert), Texas should honor the full faith and credit of the state of Massachusetts.
This means that a married couple of the same sex from Massachusetts who find themselves in Texas or acting, (even remotely), in Texas should be accorded any conjugal rights under Texas law, regardless of any odd laws that Texas might carry on its books regarding same sex unions.
Therefore,
a person in a same sex marriage should not be compelled to testify against his or her spouse in a court case in Texas;
any state-based laws regarding taxation, (besides the non-existent income tax), inheritance, or incorporation that includes language relating to spouses should be recognized by Texas if the activity is undertaken by a same sex Massachusetts couple;
etc.
This sort of ranting belongs in The BBQ Pit. Knock it off.
Beyond that,
Since hoopified maintains that his argument is not based in religion, attacks on purported beliefs in a god are irrelevant until such time as hoopified actually resorts to a religious assertion.
This goes for everyone.
[ /Moderating ]
This is patently false. Many Same Sex Marriages produce children.
Beyond that, the whole “children” issue is pretty much a red herring. We do not insist that couples be fertile to marry. We do not insist that couples procreate, regardless of fertility. We allow single individuals to adopt in many states. Many people procreate without engaging in marriage.
Marriage provides a mechanism for inheritance and for the support of survivorship without the need for explicit contracts to be drawn up in each case. In both cases, the party directly affected is the surviving spouse, not the children. Limiting that to opposite sex persons merely places an unnecessary burden on couples who may not be of the opposite sex with no actual benefit accruing to the state.
So far, we have seen evidence that children raised in homosexually led homes are provided a quality of life at least equal to that of children raised in heterosexually led homes while you have provided a single meta-study that you have misinterpreted to be an assertion in favor of opposite sex marriage when, in fact, no legitimate conclusion can be drawn from that study. On the one hand, the references to “biological” parents can equally identify same sex unions in which the birth mother was fertilized IVF or the birth father donated sperm; on the other hand, since the analysis was of a meta-study of other studies, it is clear that there would not have been sufficient number of same sex unions involved from which to draw a legitimate conclusion. Thus, we have one meta-study of questionable provenance placed against actual studies of actual families. In that case, your claim fails.
By the way, hoopified, if you do not stop destroying the quote function in your posts, I am going to be tempted to simply begin deleting your posts to make the thread easier to read. I do not know why you are messing around with the quotes, but there is no need for you to do so. Stop it.
[ /Moderating ]
Sorry, you misunderstand me. What is it about changing the institution of marriage to allow same sex couples that generates this tension? Why does anyone care about this issue who isn’t personally interested in entering a same-sex marriage?
Yes, well, that’s the problem, isn’t it? When you wake up tomorrow, you have the right to get married, provided you can find someone willing to take you up on the offer. When I wake up tomorrow, I don’t have that right. You get a different set of rules than I do. Where’s the consistency in that? Wouldn’t it be better if everyone in this country lived under the same set of rules? I sure think so. That’s one of the reasons why I support same sex marriage.
But in this case, the government itself is the source of the unfairness we’re seeking to remedy. We’re not asking the government to intervene in someone else’s behavior and make them act more equitably, we’re asking the government itself to act more equitably. While one certainly cannot ask the government to rectify every injustice in the world, certainly we can ask it to rectify those injustices which it has created itself, no?
Then tell me how to NOT disable them.
That’s up to you. You’re the mod.
Cuz I don’t know how.
[QUOTE]
[ /Moderating ]
hello
Don’t delete the brackets, and all will be well.
[QUOTE]
I’m not trying to be obtuse here, but I’m unaware of even one. And I’m unaware of how this is even possible. Can you explain what you mean?
The whole “children” issue is not a red herring, it is the whole point. We have tons of laws that recognize that children are better off being raised by their biological parents. We have divorce laws, adoption laws, child custody laws, all kinds of laws that reflect and support this notion. doma laws are just a part of the whole set.
But we encourage them to marry at the most, and demand that they participate in raising the child at the least.
Any person is free to marry anyone else of the opposite sex. To take remedy that should that not be one’s desire, he/she can take steps to leave one’s estate to anyone he/she wishes.
Then I call your supportive studies as flawed.
Yes, I get that. But how do I splice specific parts for comment?
Stop inserting [noparse]
[quote]
[/noparse] between the original opening quote that includes the username and post reference and the text you want to quote.
*Thus, when you wish to break the following into multiple responses, (which I will note many posters find irritating, although it is not against the rules), *
[noparse]
[/noparse]You should see the following before you hit submit:[noparse]
Your first response.
Your second response.
Your third response.
[/noparse]and you should NOT see this:[noparse]
[quote=“username, post:7, topic:60498”]
[/noparse]**
Your first response.
Your second response.
Your third response.
[/noparse]
Subvert?
Article IV, Sec 1:
(emphasis mine; the Founders didn’t have red ink)
Congress did, by law, provide.
How can you say this subverts Article IV, Section 1 ?
While I’m not sure if all these couples have officially married they do have children that are are being raised as a product of their relationships.
http://www.thefrisky.com/photos/gay-celebrities-whove-got-kids/gay-parents-g1-jpg/
No we don’t
These laws do not do what you think they do. These laws are used to determine who the best parent may be. I can use the same argument you are using based on that, which is a bad one. These laws can put the children into the custody of non-biological parents. By your logic is a law does that it must mean that children are better off being raised by non-biological parents.
We do? Have my friends that had children out of wedlock been getting letters from the state encouraging them to marry? Is there a specific benefit people who have children and are married entitled to that unmarried people with children are not? I’m aware of many benefits marriage offers, but none that require you have biological children to participate in.
Ah freedom based on your gender. Are you aware we made a decision as a country not to discriminate based on gender many years ago? Why do you think it’s necessary for the state to discriminate by gender in this case?
At my expense of course, heterosexual couples get to use hundreds of existing laws for transfer of property for the cost of a marriage certificate. Why shouldn’t this service be available to everyone?
Your best argument now is an article that says your earlier argument is wrong. Should we stop participating here and let you argue with yourself until you can come to us with what you actually mean to debate?
Giving Congress the authority to determine the effect of public acts is one thing. Giving Congress the authority to say there are of no effect is another one completely. Under that interpretation, what stops Congress from limiting recognition of interracial marriages?
You are the one’sa appealing to research that contradicts the premise that is reasonable and has been in operation for thousands of years. So now you can drop that appeal.
Bring that argument over to the Affordable Healthcare Act debate, would you?
The Fourteenth Amendment.
I’m not a dr. but I’m fairly certain that both members of a gay couple can not be the biological parents of a child.
Of course I don’t get it.
fYes. But generally speaking the child is put with a birth parent because of the value we put on that relationship. Ssm undercuts that.
Very, very rarely and not without a great deal of consternation by the judge.
No, my logic, and lots of laws that undergird my logic, is that we regard birth parents and children a special relationship.
I was unclear. Let me try again. We make special provisions that children are raised by their birth parents in recognition of that relationship.
What in the world? Of course we discriminate by gender. I hate to break the news to you but men and women are different. A man can not be a woman and a woman can not be a man. They act differently, they see the world differently, they are simply different. And as that is, you are free to marry any person of the opposite sex you want. Go ahead.
Because marriage between a man and woman has societal value, mainly to produce and raise children.
And you expense these days is very little. I think my marriage certificate cost… what… $30? And you can get a will done for $150. Come on.
Your best argument now is an article that says your earlier argument is wrong. Should we stop participating here and let you argue with yourself until you can come to us with what you actually mean to debate?
[/QUOTE]