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.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#27 Jul 30, 2014
lides wrote:
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.
Like your position on those elusive "greater protections?"
Dan

United States

#28 Jul 30, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
"Dan, is procreation, or the ability to procreate a prerequisite for, or a requirement of, legal marriage"

No. I simply stated why the state takes an interest in marriage. And it's undeniably true that homosexual couples cannot produce children natuarally. That's not a libel.

See what I mean? You can't discuss the issue without falling back upon as hominem.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#29 Jul 30, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Like your position on those elusive "greater protections?"
Wondering, come back to the topic, and learn to count. You look like an idiot when you advance irrelevant arguments that illustrate your inability to understand basic concepts.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#30 Jul 30, 2014
lides wrote:
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.
So, what you're saying is that anyone opposed to gay marriage is dishonorable, irrational, illogical and un-American. You are all of those things and you support gay marriage. Ergo, it must be possible to be honorable, rational, logical and a true American while opposing gay marriage.
UMass

Hungary

#31 Jul 30, 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.
It cost a lot of money to get divorced in Massachusetts. Many stay married with benefits outside of the marriage, know what I mean? Fact. Look that up lazy. Find out the reason the real reason your point is true as far as it being low. Spreading false information aren't you? Gay or not.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#32 Jul 30, 2014
Dan wrote:
No. I simply stated why the state takes an interest in marriage.
Sorry, Dan, the fact that the state does not require procreation, or even the ability to procreate proves your assertion to be false.
Dan wrote:
And it's undeniably true that homosexual couples cannot produce children natuarally. That's not a libel.
No, it's simply irrelevant.
Dan wrote:
See what I mean? You can't discuss the issue without falling back upon as hominem.
I just did, and your point is still lacking in factual support.

Repeated incantation of an opinion does not transform it into fact.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#33 Jul 30, 2014
Wondering wrote:
So, what you're saying is that anyone opposed to gay marriage is dishonorable, irrational, illogical and un-American.
They are arguing against the US Constitution and its guarantee of equal protection, you do the math. oh, wait, math isn't your strong suit, is it?
Wondering wrote:
You are all of those things and you support gay marriage.
Wondering, I support the US Constitution. You are the one making an argument to the contrary, and it si an argument you seem to lack the grey matter to factually support.
Wondering wrote:
Ergo, it must be possible to be honorable, rational, logical and a true American while opposing gay marriage.
Classic Wondering logic, completely without factual foundation.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#34 Jul 30, 2014
Dave wrote:
<quoted text>
The only way to do that is to ban adoption of children by homosexuals.
And by bigots.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#35 Jul 30, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Dan, the fact that the state does not require procreation, or even the ability to procreate proves your assertion to be false.
Are you dumb enough to go down that road again? Of course you are. States take a huge interest in marriage and family. You know this, why do you insist on posting drivel?

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#36 Jul 30, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
So, what you're saying is that anyone opposed to gay marriage is dishonorable, irrational, illogical and un-American. You are all of those things and you support gay marriage. Ergo, it must be possible to be honorable, rational, logical and a true American while opposing gay marriage.
You may personally oppose gay marriage, but if you are "honorable" and "rational", you will also recognize that gay marriage is an equal rights issue, thus you will support it despite your personal misgivings.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#37 Jul 30, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Are you dumb enough to go down that road again?
Of course you are.
Learn to read. I didn't make the argument, Dan did. I was merely responding.
Wondering wrote:
States take a huge interest in marriage and family.
And yet no state places a requirement of procreation or the ability to procreate in order to marry. I am more than happy to make you look like an idiot all over again, Wondering.
Wondering wrote:
You know this, why do you insist on posting drivel?
Once again, I was posting to refute Dan's argument, which he seem no better equipped to defend than you were.

It isn't an intelligent argument. Then again, it isn't being made by intelligent people.
Dan

United States

#38 Jul 30, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Dan, the fact that the state does not require procreation, or even the ability to procreate proves your assertion to be false.
<quoted text>
No, it's simply irrelevant.
<quoted text>
I just did, and your point is still lacking in factual support.
Repeated incantation of an opinion does not transform it into fact.
"Sorry, Dan, the fact that the state does not require procreation, or even the ability to procreate proves your assertion to be false"

Of course it doesn't prove my statement false. I never asserted a requirement; I simply stated why the state takes an interest in it. The state has no interest in your love life. If they did, they'd concern themselves with dating or couples who cohabit outside of marriage. They don't. They take an interest in marriage as it provides the optimum (for your assistance "optimum" doesn't mean "all the time"-it means best possible) situation for children that come from the union. Marriage establishes formal legal structures for the care of children from the union of the married couple, meaning that the state doesn't have additional obligations in case of the couple's dissolution. None of that dicates a requirement for procreation.

"No, it's simply irrelevant."

? Make up your mind-a minute ago it was relevant enough to you to tell me it was a false statement.
Dan

United States

#39 Jul 30, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Dan, the fact that the state does not require procreation, or even the ability to procreate proves your assertion to be false.
<quoted text>
No, it's simply irrelevant.
<quoted text>
I just did, and your point is still lacking in factual support.
Repeated incantation of an opinion does not transform it into fact.
Just in case you thought I'm making up my "states interest in marriage" thing out of whole cloth-

This from the Law Bogs at the Wall Street Journal in 2010-the respondent in the interview is
Stephanie Coontz, a professor of history at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash. Coontz is the author of several books on the family and marriage.

"Q-Interesting. You’d agree that the state has an interest in regulating marriage, right?

A-Oh absolutely. For one thing, the state has an interest in helping people carry out the commitments they have made to each other and to their children. It also has an interest in making sure that people don’t walk away from any obligations they have incurred without providing some support for the dependencies they have created in that relationship, so that the state doesn’t have to take on those obligations for them.

For that reason, the state, in my opinion, is justified in placing age limits on marriage. And it’s justified in not allowing brothers to marry sisters, and the like. Both of those regulations are in place fundamentally to protect children. They’re perfectly reasonable"

And now, so I don't get some nonsensical "the WSJ represents the old patriarchy/they're the 1%" or some other drivel from your Progressive Phrasebook-it goes on in the very next section:

Q-In your opinion, do the states’ interests extend to the regulation of morality?

A-Well, I think the justification for marriage generally actually supports why we should allow same-sex marriage. If the state is interested in protecting children and enforcing obligations to make that happen, it shouldn’t really matter if it’s a same-sex or opposite-sex couple.

Q-But some people have real moral and religious objections to same-sex marriage.

A-My response might be, well, why not have the state validate relationships between two people, but have churches choose to not recognize certain kinds of marriages. We already have a model with that with the Catholic church, which frowns upon divorce, of course.

There’s no reason churches can’t take the lead on that. A Catholic church or Baptist church should have every right not to marry two gay men, for example, if it doesn’t want to.

Q An interesting thought. Okay. Well, thanks much for taking the time.

A My pleasure. "

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/01/14/why-do-we...

:

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#40 Jul 30, 2014
Dave wrote:
<quoted text>
No because having a mother AND father is good for kids.
No, we must ensure any gay kids get therapy for their mental issues.
In your case it would better for child to have just a mother. You are way to stupid and ignorant to raise children. Stay away from children pervert.

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#41 Jul 30, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
"Dan, is procreation, or the ability to procreate a prerequisite for, or a requirement of, legal marriage"
No. I simply stated why the state takes an interest in marriage. And it's undeniably true that homosexual couples cannot produce children natuarally. That's not a libel.
See what I mean? You can't discuss the issue without falling back upon as hominem.
Doesn't matter, having children is not a requirement in any state in the country. Plus how does having SSM interfere with married heterosexuals having children? Hint, it doesn't, thus making the argument irrelevant.

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#42 Jul 30, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
"Sorry, Dan, the fact that the state does not require procreation, or even the ability to procreate proves your assertion to be false"
Of course it doesn't prove my statement false. I never asserted a requirement; I simply stated why the state takes an interest in it. The state has no interest in your love life. If they did, they'd concern themselves with dating or couples who cohabit outside of marriage. They don't. They take an interest in marriage as it provides the optimum (for your assistance "optimum" doesn't mean "all the time"-it means best possible) situation for children that come from the union. Marriage establishes formal legal structures for the care of children from the union of the married couple, meaning that the state doesn't have additional obligations in case of the couple's dissolution. None of that dicates a requirement for procreation.
"No, it's simply irrelevant."
? Make up your mind-a minute ago it was relevant enough to you to tell me it was a false statement.
All of the above applies equally to married parents of adopted, test tube or artificial insemination produced children, straight or Gay parents. The states position is bogus or the listed children aren't relevant in the states eyes. Result, state loses.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#43 Jul 30, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Learn to read. I didn't make the argument, Dan did. I was merely responding.
and your response is what I replied to. I think you need to learn to read.
Dan

United States

#44 Jul 30, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't matter, having children is not a requirement in any state in the country. Plus how does having SSM interfere with married heterosexuals having children? Hint, it doesn't, thus making the argument irrelevant.
Well, I never stated that it was a requirement. I only stated why the state takes an interest in marriage. That's all.

SSM doesn't interfere with homosexuals having children. I never made that claim either.

Which maes your post here irrelevant. It's a refutation of claims no one made. Not me anyway.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#45 Jul 30, 2014
lides wrote:
Wondering, I support the US Constitution.
Yes, unless you happen to be a baker, photographer, florist, etc.
It's okay, you don't understand the constitution so it doesn't matter if you claim to support it.
Dan

United States

#46 Jul 30, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
All of the above applies equally to married parents of adopted, test tube or artificial insemination produced children, straight or Gay parents. The states position is bogus or the listed children aren't relevant in the states eyes. Result, state loses.
Tom-

Put your "Handy Argiuments to Defend SSM" flash cards down and read the posts.

I didn't say a thing about who the parents were or how the children came into the marrriage.

I simply, again, wrote why the state takes an interest in marriage.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 1 min NutSo HL 30,684
News Trump hypes mock video of golf ball seen striki... 11 min See The Light 109
News Trump, the 'America First' president, goes to t... 17 min John McQuan 35
News News 21 Mins Ago Senate intelligence chairman: ... 24 min John McQuan 1
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 26 min Limbertwig 289,138
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 31 min mdbuilder 1,600,075
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 32 min Freedomofexpression 9,685
News Pro-Trump rally draws hundreds, not thousands t... 4 hr californio 66
More from around the web