- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,982
- Reaction score
- 60,541
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
:lol: doubtful.... More likley a raging libertarian.
Oh no, a definite left winger...
or maybe a defensman.
:lol: doubtful.... More likley a raging libertarian.
Oh no, a definite left winger...
or maybe a defensman.
So, if the only pre-qualifier is a willingness to raise children, then you have no problem with gay marriage?
As long as gay and straight couples sign a legal document that they will raise children -- they're in like flynn.
Correct?
Right.
That's why I keep asking for data on how many gays are actually raising children.
Really? Where is the case law that makes that determination? I'd like to see it.
That data is irrelevant. It is an arbitrary requirement that YOU attach to the issue which the law doesn't. There is no requirement nor even interest that child rearing comes along with marriage certificates.
An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
An estimated 14,100 foster children are living with lesbian or gay parents.
Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
More than one in three lesbians have given birth and one in six gay men have fathered or adopted a child.
More than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians want to have a child.
An estimated two million GLB people are interested in adopting.
Troxil, Skinner, Loving....
And the big ones:
Source cited earlier, report is from 2007.
Those are good statistics. However, it is still irrelevant to the issue of marriage as child rearing is not a requisite for a marriage license.
I even said it wasn't a stated requisite on the document, wtf are you talking about?
I said the raising of children is what established the state's compelling interest to infringe on your right to privacy, in your marriage, and lay down some rules.
If you have no children, the state has no compelling interest, and you're free to go have a ceremony and live together in perfect privacy.
If you don't have children, then I don't understand why you would want the state to infringe on your right to privacy when it clearly therefore has no compelling interest to do so.
So, since one in three lesbians have children, doesn't the state have a compelling interest in seeing them married?
I even said it wasn't a stated requisite on the document, wtf are you talking about?
I said the raising of children is what established the state's compelling interest to infringe on your right to privacy, in your marriage, and lay down some rules.
If you have no children, the state has no compelling interest, and you're free to go have a ceremony and live together in perfect privacy.
If you don't have children, then I don't understand why you would want the state to infringe on your right to privacy when it clearly therefore has no compelling interest to do so.
The state has an interest in the marriage of those lesbians who are raising children.
The state has no interest in the marriage of those lesbians who are not.
What infringement on right to privacy? The marriage certificate comes with a list of benefits, not a wire tap.
The state has an interest in the marriage of those lesbians who are raising children.
The state has no interest in the marriage of those lesbians who are not.
How about the approximately 2 million gay people who want to adapt?
What infringement on right to privacy? The marriage certificate comes with a list of benefits, not a wire tap.
Brothah, if it's your personal knowledge against mine, I'm pulling rank.
Yeah, they mean everyone "including same sex partners".
And I am pulling "your anecdote doesn't mean **** to me".
Solved that issue squarely.
As to the rest of your assertion, it is all opinion. You may view it that way, but the law doesn't. Child rearing is not requisite or even particularly encouraged when getting a marriage certificate. It is an arbitrary issue you attach to the gay marriage debate so you can justify your disagreement.
:shrug:
That's one way to avoid the issue, sure. Next time you might post a distracting YouTube :2wave:
...yeah if just copy/past the url, vB will display the vid.....Why? I just undermined your entire argument in a legitimate way. The challenge is on you to support it, which you chose not to do.
:shrug:
...yeah if just copy/past the url, vB will display the vid.....
Personally me and mines never needed a permission slip from the state to validate our love for each other....
Just sayin.