Texas: Gay-marriage ban best for chil...

Texas: Gay-marriage ban best for children

There are 685 comments on the The Washington Post story from Jul 29, 2014, titled Texas: Gay-marriage ban best for children. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

Texas' ban on same-sex marriage allows the state to promote the birth and upbringing of children in "stable, lasting relationships," the state's attorney general argued Tuesday while asking a federal appeals court to reinstate the ban.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

First Prev
of 35
Next Last
passing by

Salina, KS

#1 Jul 29, 2014
Mr Abbott, if the voters of Texas really know what is best for their state, how did they manage to approve an amendment that violates the constitutional rights of a good sized number of their fellow Texans? Plus, your getting elected in the first place proves the invalidity of the argument that the voters know best.

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#2 Jul 29, 2014
From "US Divorce Rates and Statistics":

QUOTE: "In 2004, political commentators enlisted divorce statistics along the red state-blue state battle lines when the George Barna Research Group announced that the bluest of blue states, Massachusetts, had the lowest divorce rate of 2.4 per 1,000 population, while rosy red Texas came in a 4.1 per 1,000 population. Moreover, nine very red Southern states - Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, George, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and South Carolina -- had divorce rates half again as high as the national average, 4.2 per 1,000 population.

Barna, a born-again Christian, dolefully admitted that the areas of the country where divorce rates were highest are frequently the areas many conservative Christians live." UNQUOTE

Mr. Abbott, care to explain why Massachusetts, the first state to legally provide same sex marriage, has the LOWEST divorce rate of any state? No, I didn't think you would.

Otter Rules

Vestal, NY

#3 Jul 29, 2014
Otter in the Ozarks wrote:
From "US Divorce Rates and Statistics":
QUOTE: "In 2004, political commentators enlisted divorce statistics along the red state-blue state battle lines when the George Barna Research Group announced that the bluest of blue states, Massachusetts, had the lowest divorce rate of 2.4 per 1,000 population, while rosy red Texas came in a 4.1 per 1,000 population. Moreover, nine very red Southern states - Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, George, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and South Carolina -- had divorce rates half again as high as the national average, 4.2 per 1,000 population.
Barna, a born-again Christian, dolefully admitted that the areas of the country where divorce rates were highest are frequently the areas many conservative Christians live." UNQUOTE
Mr. Abbott, care to explain why Massachusetts, the first state to legally provide same sex marriage, has the LOWEST divorce rate of any state? No, I didn't think you would.
Excellent point!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#4 Jul 29, 2014
This will likely be the anti-gays best chance at a win. The 5th circuit is one of the most conservative appeals court in the nation, along with the 6th & 7th & 8th circuits.

We got lucky with the 3 judge panel selected in the 6th circuit. No word on the 5th or 7th yet.
Christsharians on the DL

Philadelphia, PA

#6 Jul 29, 2014
The TX officials have channeled Rick Perry to arrive at the conclusion that marriage equality will result in fewer (closeted) persons entering into heterosexual marriages and spawning.

This is the only way their argument makes any sense on its own terms.

What they really meant to say is that marriage equality will harm [sic] families and children by further opening up the idea that lgbt people are not less than. And that would make life somewhat easier for lgbt people and teens. That's what the fundies object to.

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

#7 Jul 29, 2014
Texas is not healthy for children. It should be banned for those under 18.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#9 Jul 29, 2014
Portis wrote:
Gay-marriage ban best for children.
Anybody with the slightest bit of common sense should know that.
Not according to almost all judges who've heard same sex marriage cases. Your kind have lost that battle.
Sir Andrew

Honolulu, HI

#10 Jul 29, 2014
Portis wrote:
Gay-marriage ban best for children.
Anybody with the slightest bit of common sense should know that.
Well, you clearly have the slightest bit of common sense--and ONLY the slightest bit--so I guess your statement is true.

But for the rest of us, at least those with actual functioning IQs, your declaration is absurd on its face, as every judge reviewing these cases in every court in America has said. I am a little surprised that you're so stupid as to repeat this inane lie. But only a little surprised.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#11 Jul 29, 2014
Portis wrote:
Gay-marriage ban best for children.
Anybody with the slightest bit of common sense should know that.
How, exactly, is it better for children of gay couples to ban their parents from legally marrying? All that does is make their lives for more difficult as their family is denied the benefits and legal protections that have been designed into civil marriage to, what???? To protect children.

You really should think a little more before you post, shouldn't you?
david traversa

Cordoba, Argentina

#12 Jul 29, 2014
How extraordinary that the same people that cause children to live in foster homes and orphanages are worried about their destiny .. Imbeciles ( the great majority ), should NOT reproduce ..

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#13 Jul 29, 2014
I suppose he is going to regurgitate the Regnerus nonsense.

His argument is irrelevant and he will lose.

1. But he argued that opposite-sex couples are better suited to have and raise children, and thus help reduce “societal costs.”

Huge fallacy which he cannot prove.

2.“Because same-sex relationships do not naturally produce children, recognizing same-sex marriage does not further these goals to the same extent that recognizing opposite-sex marriage does,”

Huge fallacy. Same-sex couples have families. People without children marry.

3. In its motion filed Tuesday, Abbott’s office said its argument — that opposite-sex couples provide the best environment for newborn children

Huge fallacy. False assumption that banning same-sex marriage automatically guarantees that all newborn children will have married opposite sex parents as a result.

BIG NOTHING there destined to fail.
Henkes

Calgary, Canada

#14 Jul 30, 2014
What is best for a child is to have parents who love them. And parents who can be positive role models for them as they grow. If gay parents can do this, WHATS THE PROBLEM!!
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#15 Jul 30, 2014
Otter in the Ozarks wrote:
Mr. Abbott, care to explain why Massachusetts, the first state to legally provide same sex marriage, has the LOWEST divorce rate of any state? No, I didn't think you would.
If you are implying that same sex marriage is why Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate I'm going to start calling you lides2.
Cordwainer Trout

Elizabethtown, KY

#16 Jul 30, 2014
The only scientific studies to date of the long term results of same sex households raising children is the adult children show post traumatic stress and inabilities to adjust to normal society. Both the US and Canadian studies show gays are faking families and fake families damage children. Single parent households do better than gay households.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#17 Jul 30, 2014
Portis wrote:
Gay-marriage ban best for children.
Anybody with the slightest bit of common sense should know that.
Because having unmarried parents is good for kids? Or because ensuring that gay kids are aware that they will always be second class citizens will help those youth to be productive adults?

Please explain.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#18 Jul 30, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are implying that same sex marriage is why Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate I'm going to start calling you lides2.
Isn't one of the only remaining arguments against same sex marriage that straight people will stop marrying and raising kids inside of marriage?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#22 Jul 30, 2014
Dave wrote:
<quoted text>
The only way to do that is to ban adoption of children by homosexuals.
What about lesbians? Do you plan on banning them from getting pregnant as well? Just how far are you willing to take your fascist ideas??

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#23 Jul 30, 2014
Portis wrote:
Gay-marriage ban best for children.
Anybody with the slightest bit of common sense should know that.
We can see that common sense does NOT grow in your garden.
Dan

United States

#24 Jul 30, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
I suppose he is going to regurgitate the Regnerus nonsense.
His argument is irrelevant and he will lose.
1. But he argued that opposite-sex couples are better suited to have and raise children, and thus help reduce “societal costs.”
Huge fallacy which he cannot prove.
2.“Because same-sex relationships do not naturally produce children, recognizing same-sex marriage does not further these goals to the same extent that recognizing opposite-sex marriage does,”
Huge fallacy. Same-sex couples have families. People without children marry.
3. In its motion filed Tuesday, Abbott’s office said its argument — that opposite-sex couples provide the best environment for newborn children
Huge fallacy. False assumption that banning same-sex marriage automatically guarantees that all newborn children will have married opposite sex parents as a result.
BIG NOTHING there destined to fail.
1.) hard to prove on the "raise" part-correct. Not enough historical data to conclude anything on that end.

2.) "Because same-sex relationships do not naturally produce children"

Not really a "huge fallacy".

Just saying.

3.) I'm not sure that saying "provides the best" equates to "will automatically guarantee that all......."

The state takes interest in marriage primarily for the welfare of children. They don't care who loves whom. There isn't a check box on a marriage license asking if you love your intended and if so, how much.

Guess my point is that every single argument made by those who may not agree with SSM isn't simply irrational or employed with some ulterior motive. There can be reasonable disagreemnt.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#26 Jul 30, 2014
Dan wrote:
1.) hard to prove on the "raise" part-correct. Not enough historical data to conclude anything on that end.
Dan, just because you cannot find a study that supports your conclusion, does not mean that data does not exist.
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-health/chi...
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/06/05/2106...
Dan wrote:
2.) "Because same-sex relationships do not naturally produce children"
Not really a "huge fallacy".
Just saying.
If you need to parse the comment and only respond to one facet of it, that is a sign that your position isn't particularly strong.
Dan wrote:
3.) I'm not sure that saying "provides the best" equates to "will automatically guarantee that all......."
Which is why we have agencies for child protection services. Even in straight houses there are adverse outcomes. It appears that your argument is growing weaker by the moment.
Dan wrote:
The state takes interest in marriage primarily for the welfare of children. They don't care who loves whom. There isn't a check box on a marriage license asking if you love your intended and if so, how much.
Dan, is procreation, or the ability to procreate a prerequisite for, or a requirement of, legal marriage? If not, your assertion is simply not true.
Dan wrote:
Guess my point is that every single argument made by those who may not agree with SSM isn't simply irrational or employed with some ulterior motive. There can be reasonable disagreemnt.
No, Dan, there can't be. Arguing to deny fellow citizens equality under the law is bigoted, it is irrational, and as you have just illustrated it is without rational, logical, or constitutional basis.

We can't agree to disagree that some Americans deserve to be second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law, because some people are honorable Americans who won't abide by that kind of hypocrisy.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 35
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rick Perry Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The Civil War Is Over: Let The Battle Flag Be (Nov '11) 56 min Devil in my wifes... 4,029
News 2016 hopefuls react to Obamacare ruling 1 hr illegal Pilgrims 21
News America celebrates July 4 with parades, hot dog... 1 hr Novus Ordo Seclorum 4
News Candidates jockey for position in New Hampshire... 17 hr checkmateperiod 1
News GOP field fractured over same-sex marriage Fri Synque 19
News The Republicans "Deep Bench". Thu Miss Id 1
News Perry: Hillary will face pushback on honesty is... Wed wild child 1
More from around the web