Big DOMA Decision Handed Down

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>Who says it has to follow what is demanded by the 14th amendment? Marriage is a basic civil right for all US citizens. procreation is not required to exercise that right.
there is no rational reason to exclude gays from exercising this right.

says you.
not the courts.
the courts say things like:
"First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; &#8201;homosexual intercourse does not. &#8194; Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. &#8194; The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. &#8194; It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. &#8194; It thus could choose to offer an inducement-in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits-to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. &#8194; These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. &#8194; The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. &#8194; This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

There is a second reason: &#8201;The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. &#8194; Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. &#8194; It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule-some children who never know their fathers, or their &#8201;mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes-but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold."

Aspiring to have a stable mom and dad for every child is very rational...

The_Box wrote:

<quoted text>
Your analogy is poor. Straight people make up a tiny fraction (some of the Ts) of the LGBT community.

as does infertility in straights in marriage.

The_Box wrote:

<quoted text>

Why can't you just be honest? The rule you want isn't "marriage is for couples to have kids"; it's "marriage is for straight couples". You're not fooling anyone.

I am being honest. You are wrong.

Why don't you answer, would allowing ALL straights to be LGBT diminish that status for gays?
I note that gay's status as LGBT would be unchanged.

get how straights are just not the group LGBT is for? Even though there are some straights who do belong?

right.

BTW, ydo get that straights are literally barred from being LGBT based on nothing but their SEXUAL ORIENTATION!
BIGOTRY?
Why do you hate us and want us to be second class citizens? in the face of equal protection and all...

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
says you.
not the courts.
the courts say things like:
"First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; &#8201;homosexual intercourse does not. &#8194; Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. &#8194; The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. &#8194; It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. &#8194; It thus could choose to offer an inducement-in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits-to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.
The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. &#8194; These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. &#8194; The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. &#8194; This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.
There is a second reason: &#8201;The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. &#8194; Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. &#8194; It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule-some children who never know their fathers, or their &#8201;mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes-but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold."
Aspiring to have a stable mom and dad for every child is very rational...

But having children has nothing to do with marriage, as previously pointed out.

The_Box wrote:

<quoted text>
1. Your analogy is poor. Straight people make up a tiny fraction (some of the Ts) of the LGBT community.
2. Why can't you just be honest? The rule you want isn't "marriage is for couples to have kids"; it's "marriage is for straight couples". You're not fooling anyone.

1. I asked questions about this and got no answer. If a man thinks he's a woman and is attracted to men is he gay? If a woman thinks she's a man and is attracted to women is she gay? If a woman believes she's a man and is attracted to a woman who claims she's straight but wants her to keep her female genitalia is she lying about being straight?
2. You are absolutely right, marriage is for straight people. One man and one woman.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>But having children has nothing to do with marriage, as previously pointed out.

Only because gay couples can't have any. Having children played a big role in my decision to marry. For me, having children had a lot to do with marriage.

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
Silly stuff. Have you told any of your straight childless friends, co-workers, and family members that their reproductive organs are waste? I suspect not.
And do you think gay people are sterile and never have children?
Why don't you just admit you don't have anything more relevant than silly - and untrue - insults?

Wasn't it you that said same sex marriage would encourage manogomy?
Well, that's silly, but if it did the what I said was true.

monogamy, sorry.

Quest wrote:

I will never understand this anti-parent, anti-adoption stance of yours.

I am neither.

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes dear, a sperm and egg are required to make a child. They are not required for a marriage license, though.
No one checks to make sure that any marrying couple can produce either.

If you want to pretend you don't understand what I've said then I'm fine with that. Try Rick In Kansas statement:
"Then and I'll bet you didn't know this, but most states recognize children born into a marriage as a product of that marriage, even when it was a physical impossibility."

Play around with that one. A child born into a marriage when it's a physical impossibility.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>But having children has nothing to do with marriage, as previously pointed out.

then what is this COURT talking about?

Who has no clue? you or the high court of New York?
not.even.close.

Wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
Only because gay couples can't have any. Having children played a big role in my decision to marry. For me, having children had a lot to do with marriage.

Many couples can not have any kids, they still marry. Many couples have kids and do not marry. A non-issue in this debate.

Wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
Wasn't it you that said same sex marriage would encourage manogomy?
Well, that's silly, but if it did the what I said was true.

Are you saying marriage doesn't encourage monogomy?

Wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
If you want to pretend you don't understand what I've said then I'm fine with that. Try Rick In Kansas statement:
"Then and I'll bet you didn't know this, but most states recognize children born into a marriage as a product of that marriage, even when it was a physical impossibility."
Play around with that one. A child born into a marriage when it's a physical impossibility.

and then figure out how the sperm donor is also a parent:

"A sperm donor who sent gifts signed "Dad" to his biological son has been slapped with a child-support order, 18 years after helping his friend get pregnant.

"It really is no good deed goes unpunished," said the man's lawyer, Deborah Kelly of Potrush and Daab in Garden City.
"When people do things they think are being done with good intentions and there is an agreement and one of the party reneges on the agreement, it is certainly disconcerting."
She said the time lapse was "unusual."
"He was assured that he would have no responsibility on his part and of course 18 years has elapsed where there hasn't been responsibility," she said.
"He did not anticipate this would happen now, when the child is almost an adult, that the mother would come forward for child support."
She said her client had requested a DNA test, "because we have no concrete evidence he is the father."
Nassau County Family Court judge Ellen Greenberg ruled Nov. 16 against a paternity test, saying it would have a traumatic effect on the child."

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/item_G1...

now this:

Our study, released by the Commission on Parenthood's Future last week, focused on how young-adult donor offspring—and comparison samples of young adults who were raised by adoptive or biological parents—make sense of their identities and family experiences, how they approach reproductive technologies more generally, and how they are faring on key outcomes. The study of 18- to 45-year-olds includes 485 who were conceived via sperm donation, 562 adopted as infants, and 563 raised by their biological parents.
The results are surprising. While adoption is often the center of controversy, it turns out that sperm donation raises a host of different but equally complex—and sometimes troubling—issues. Two-thirds of adult donor offspring agree with the statement "My sperm donor is half of who I am." Nearly half are disturbed that money was involved in their conception. More than half say that when they see someone who resembles them, they wonder if they are related. About two-thirds affirm the right of donor offspring to know the truth about their origins.
Regardless of socioeconomic status, donor offspring are twice as likely as those raised by biological parents to report problems with the law before age 25. They are more than twice as likely to report having struggled with substance abuse. And they are about 1.5 times as likely to report depression or other mental health problems.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>Many couples can not have any kids, they still marry. Many couples have kids and do not marry. A non-issue in this debate.

says you.
yet all the scotus cases that mention marriage discuss procreation..
I wonder why...

your feelings about it are what is a non-issue.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>Are you saying marriage doesn't encourage monogomy?

wait, marriage has an effect on the person sexual activities?
go figure!
Guess what else?
we don't care unless kids MAY come of it!

Jane Dough wrote:

are there straight people who are LGBT?
(yes)

Are you attempting to concretely prove that you are an idiot, because this comes very close? If a persons is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or trans-gendered, then by definition they are not straight. Only a basket-case would imply that they are.

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you attempting to concretely prove that you are an idiot, because this comes very close? If a persons is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or trans-gendered, then by definition they are not straight. Only a basket-case would imply that they are.

so in your world , there are no transgenders that are attracted to the opposite sex?

Oops you're a buffoon again...

Jane Dough wrote:

so in your world , there are no transgenders that are attracted to the opposite sex?
Oops you're a buffoon again...

Yeah, you really are an idiot. Congratulations, you would rather split hairs on an irrelevant argument than attempt to support your position. I used to know people like you, in junior high school.

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
Congratulations, you would rather split hairs on an irrelevant argument than attempt to support your position. I used to know people like you, in junior high school.

is this your way of admitting you said something dumb? AGAIN?

admit you insulted me when you were wrong. That you won't is EXACTLY why you are useless...

and tell them I say hello since I believe you are in Jr High right now...
does you teacher know you are on this board?

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
says you.
yet all the scotus cases that mention marriage discuss procreation..
I wonder why...
your feelings about it are what is a non-issue.

yet people that cannot possibly procreat are granted marriage licenses with no questions asked and their marriages are fully recognized by the state and federal gov't. obviously, it is not a reqquirement or necessary part of marriage.