Utah legalizes gay marriage, December 20, 2013

spiritspeak

I do think it's too bad for the children, don't know if adoption or IVF/donation is legal yet but I'm sure it will along with marriage, such a child will never know either their father or mother, one of them will be missing. And I also believe it would be better to call it something completely different.

edit on 26-1-2014 by spiritspeak because: (no reason given)

Such a child would never know any parent at all if they are in an orphanage, so saying that gay peoples shouldn't adopt them because there is only one gender makes no sense whatsoever. Single people can adopt in most states, after all, and there's only one parent.

Both of my parents were orphans and people have this ridiculous opinion that children shouldn't be adopted by gay couples are morally repugnant.

People seriously need to stop demanding controlling legislation based on their tainted opinions. That is not what freedom is about. You have no place to tell people what they are and aren't allowed to do if it isn't negatively affecting anything; unless you can prove that it is negatively affecting someone, you have no place to control people based on that, lest you be controlled yourself for something someone doesn't agree with and doesn't negatively affect anything.

The mentality that it takes to think that you have the right to demand control over other peoples' lives is absolutely beyond me.

Returning to the inital theme of marriage ...

ExoPatriotico
This is Mormon place. Mormons want polygamy to be a legal thing now. If Mormons say yes to homo stuff then it will be easy to win back many marriages rights - No?

Well, I say why not! Which of the arguments for gay marriage on this thread could not be applied to polygamy?

TheRegal

spiritspeak

I do think it's too bad for the children, don't know if adoption or IVF/donation is legal yet but I'm sure it will along with marriage, such a child will never know either their father or mother, one of them will be missing. And I also believe it would be better to call it something completely different.

edit on 26-1-2014 by spiritspeak because: (no reason given)

Such a child would never know any parent at all if they are in an orphanage, so saying that gay peoples shouldn't adopt them because there is only one gender makes no sense whatsoever.

Yes, that is why it is better they end up amongst eachother so they might strike life long friendships with people who have been through the same and they'd understand eachother better than someone with (loving) parents. Especially in some orphanages where there are great caretakers, it would be better for a child I think. Besides some orphans are very strict about biological parents and caretakers.

It's not so much because of gender, it's about rolemodels in a society, I just think it's better to have specialists of male and female instead of both knowing both sides, which would take longer and they wouldn't need eachother that much anyway. The male and female coming together and forming a unit. Sure males might emulate or mimic the female but it can never be as real as what a real woman has, it's always make believe and forced.

In old times when males went out hunting and females took care of the home a hunter could become extremely good at hunting while a female could become extremely good at managing a home. But in these times males and females are just adequate at both but they can never excel because of time constraints.

Single people can adopt in most states, after all, and there's only one parent.

Sure but then there would not be much of a conflict since there is no male trying to convince the child it has the role of the mother or a female forcing the child to accept her as a father role, which is difficult for any child when they provide everything from food, shelter, clothing. It's similar to disagreeing with your boss at the risk of getting fired, not that most children are mature ofcourse to verbalize such a thing and usually 'feels' what is right to say to get food, shelter and clothing. Which is just my opinion, I'm sure there are lots others and some might feel scientific but can't really change anything for me.

Both of my parents were orphans and people have this ridiculous opinion that children shouldn't be adopted by gay couples are morally repugnant.

It's not like I'm going to believe you accusing of immorality and would start to feel bad about myself.

People seriously need to stop demanding controlling legislation based on their tainted opinions.

Well you have a point since it's almost irreversible. But society belongs to everyone, we all influence eachother and if not that means some are going to get ignored or left out. Anyway I wasn't really demanding anything, just trying to adapt to a changing world and get my truth right so others who disagree understand why without getting upset.

That is not what freedom is about. You have no place to tell people what they are and aren't allowed to do if it isn't negatively affecting anything; unless you can prove that it is negatively affecting someone, you have no place to control people based on that, lest you be controlled yourself for something someone doesn't agree with and doesn't negatively affect anything.

The mentality that it takes to think that you have the right to demand control over other peoples' lives is absolutely beyond me.

Then neither can you demand control over other peoples' lives and demand the things you do. Not that I am forcing anything, just stating my opinion and you trying to make yourself believe you are right and I am wrong. The proof you ask for is impossible to gain since no one can live life twice and compare it and say one gave a better quality of life than the other so I can't take that seriously.

Ah, the old "it takes a man and a woman to make a perfect home" chestnut ... EXCEPT:

FIFTY (50%) Percent of all marriages end in divorce.

FIFTY EIGHT POINT NINE PERCENT (58.9%) of the non-custodial parents in divorce DO NOT PAY CHILD SUPPORT TO THE EX- SPOUSE. (Source)

CHILDREN of divorce are less likely to form healthy trusting relationships later in life. Source

CHIDREN of divorce are 48 PERCENT more likely to start SMOKING, are more likely to fall behind in academic and social skills, are more likely to drop out of school, and more likely to become involved in crime at an earlier age. Source



Facts are just so inconvenient in comparison with belief, aren't they?

reply to post by spiritspeak


You are living in a weir fantasy world where you make up problems that don't exist and act as if they are valid. I won't be fooled into thinking they have validity simply because you assure me that they are "your opinions". Opinions are worthless without evidence to back them up. Your arguments are nothing new and they have been proven wrong time and time again.

Parenting is not contigent on the gender of the parents and the livelihood of a child is not dependant on any form of gender roles.

Siegel, a School of Medicine professor of pediatrics, coauthored a report, published by the American Academy of Pediatrics the week before the court case, arguing that three decades of research concur that kids of gay parents are doing just fine.

“Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents,” Siegel writes with coauthor Ellen Perrin, a Tufts University professor of pediatrics and director of developmental and behavioral pediatrics.

...

The best study so far, Siegel tells BU Today, is the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, begun in 1986. The study has followed 154 lesbian mothers and recently checked in on 78 adolescent children, comparing the mothers’ and kids’ self-reported status against national standardized samples.

The lesbian mothers’ reports of their children “indicated that they had high levels of social, school/academic, and total competence and fewer social problems, rule-breaking, and aggressive and externalizing behavior compared with their age-matched counterparts,” Siegel and Perrin write. If you might expect parents to say that, consider their kids’ testimony: “The self-reported quality of life of the adolescents in this sample was similar to that reported by a comparable sample of adolescents with heterosexual parents.”

Siegel and Perrin’s report also cites three studies done in the United States and Europe—two involving lesbian mothers and the third one involving men and women whose adult children reported they’d had a parent involved in a same-sex relationship. Those studies similarly found no difference in outcomes for the children as compared with children of heterosexual parents.

Source

Many studies and statistics tend to actually suggest that gay parents do better on average than heterosexuals because of the obvious fact that same-sex parents always have to choose to be parents, so the child is always wanted.

Source

Also, your statement about orphanages shows a massive amount of ignorance about what it's like to be an orphan. Growing up without any parents at all in an orphanage is not better than having parents based on some "brotherhood" mentality, and you aren't going to pass off that absolute nonsense on someone who knows about the reality of it; to suggest that is strictly asinine. Children are not appropriate teachers for other children. Oprhans who do not get adopted are more likely to get involved in crime, commit suicide, or even get into organised gangs. Females are more likely to get into relationships with older men for money, or become prostitutes. Again, you say things and claim sanctuary in them being "opinions" when they are just false statements; it's not correct. Stating that it is "simply an opinion" by no means gives it merit; it's wrong.

Every 2.2 seconds another orphan ages out with no family to belong to and no place to call home

Studies have shown that 10% – 15% of these children commit suicide before they reach age eighteen

These studies also show that 60% of the girls become prostitutes and 70% of the boys become hardened criminals

Another study reported that of the 15,000 orphans aging out of state-run institutions every year, 10% committed suicide, 5,000 were unemployed, 6,000 were homeless and 3,000 were in prison within three years…

Source

reply to post by Gryphon66


Good post. It makes me think about how many gay marriages will end in divorce, and on what timeline. Will they end on average sooner or later than opposite sex marriages? Will the reasons be the same? The number of legal marriages may be too low now to give a good statistical look at this, but as a couple of decades go by the numbers will probably settle into an average.

There is a new twist in the entire gay marriage debate. And this one comes from the state of Ok.

In the legislators lack of wisdom and foresight, and thinking, they are deciding to do away with the entire concept of the state having anything to do with marriage, and believing this will keep same sex marriage out of the spotlight or allowed in the state of Ok.

Now while this may be a solution state does not recognize marriage, however, there are a few tiny flaws in that aspect that I do not think that those in favor of this law have considered. Consider this, if the state of Ok decides to no longer recognize any and all marriages, it would thus invalidate all criminal laws on the books when it comes to bigamy, polygamy, and ultimately there is no reason for a spouse to support the other spouse. It would mean that all of the spouses who are not working and are stay at home parents would be eligible for any and all public assistance. And for law enforcement it would be a boon, as now a wife could be compelled to testify against her husband in a court of law. Course there will be a problem when it comes to the children, and who is to have custody and who is to have visitation rights. And I am sure all of those married couples will have the foresight to go out and get powers of attorney’s for each other, and then the financial windfall due to the death taxes.

Yes this may be a solution, but ultimately it is going to come back to hit and hurt all who support this kind of legislation. Or see more really bad legislation pass.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Interesting. Is this just a proposal by one or two legislatures? Do you have a story link? This doesn't sound at all feasible, as then nobody could get married in Oklahoma or have their marriage recognized in Oklahoma. Maybe this is just a publicity grab by whomever is sponsoring such legislation, which probably wouldn't even get to the floor of the Senate or House let alone be signed by the Governor. An interesting concept though, one I haven't imagined before.

And h'ere's a new New Yorker story which summarizes the past month, with some developments I hadn't heard of. A good read for anyone interested in this issue:

www.newyorker.com...

Just one of the many interesting items in the article:

The expanding reach of Windsor was visible in another decision, last week, in an appellate-court case that seemed at first of interest only to lawyers. On January 21st, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prospective jurors could not be excluded on the basis of their sexual orientation. The court based its opinion on the Windsor decision, ruling that the Supreme Court had applied a new, heightened level of scrutiny for equal protection based on sexual orientation, even if it had not expressly articulated that new standard. The judges went on to argue that, under the standard applied in Windsor, the government could not treat people differently based on their sexual orientation. The decision made the Ninth Circuit, which covers the western United States, the first circuit court to grant “heightened scrutiny” to sexual orientation—making it far less likely that laws which discriminate on these grounds will survive constitutional challenges.

reply to post by Aleister


Oklahoma Considering Separation Of Marriage & State (VIDEO)

Read more at TLR: Oklahoma Considering Separation Of Marriage & State (VIDEO) | The Libertarian Republic thelibertarianrepublic.com...


Here is the link to the story that I came across.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Thanks. Leave it to the Republicans to throw the baby up in the air and drown it in the bathwater.

The Virginia case is being heard today, and apparently the judge in the matter, taking the Virginian Attorney General's support of the gay partners in the case, almost canceled the oral arguments. This seems to say that the judge will rule in the plantiff's favor, overturn Virginia's ban on gay marriage, and allow the state to marry gays. But this is just the hearing, so I don't know how long before the judge hands out her decision:

news.yahoo.com.../

The attorneys representing the plaintiffs on behalf of the American Foundation for Equal rights are the same ones that successfully challenged California's ban on gay marriage in court there.

After Herring's office decided not to defend the law, U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen considered not even hearing verbal arguments in the case because of the "compelling" filing by the attorney general's office. Wright Allen is a former public defender and assistant U.S. attorney who was appointed to the post by President Barack Obama.

And Utah has filed its briefs and answers for the February 25th hearing, arguing that the Supreme Court ruling last year allowed the states to determine their own future on gay marriage:

www.latimes.com...

Late Monday night, Utah filed its opening argument with the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. It argued that Shelby had erred by not giving enough weight to the Supreme Court’s decision that states had a right to define marriage, and Utah contended that the federal government cannot interfere with its decision-making authority.

Utah’s arguments call for a permitted “diversity of outcomes” rather than a “uniform national answer” on marriage practices, the 120-page brief says.

Limiting marriage to one man and one woman fulfills “a compelling governmental interest” rooted in tradition and religion, the state said, using some of the same arguments it had during the earlier stages of the case. It also stressed the importance of the ban in promoting its interpretation of child welfare. The ban is supported by approximately 20 of the 25 largest faith communities in Utah that “understand marriage and sexuality as gifts from God” and primarily designed to bear and raise children, the state maintained.

Here's a report on yesterday's hearing in the Virginia case. When the ruling comes down the appeal will go the the 4th Circuit Court. From a reading of this news report it seems the pro-gay marriage side had sound constitutional arguments while the anti-gay marriage side talked again about how children need a mother and a father. This is an odd argument, as marriage can be entered into by people who are either above child-bearing age or by a sterile person, so it would have no legal standing whatsoever and is likely being trotted out in these court cases either as a last-straw grasp or to muddy the waters in the public arena.

www.baltimoresun.com...

"Virginia erects a wall around its gay and lesbian citizens, excluding them from the most important relationship in life," said Ted Olson, who's representing the plaintiffs with The American Foundation for Equal Rights. That renders their desire to get married "second-rate, inferior, unequal, unworthy and void."

Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, called marriage "a fundamental right" that should be available to all citizens.

"It's the right of the individual, not the right of the state," Olson said. "Rights of the individual should not be taken away … (But) the Commonwealth of Virginia has taken away a fundamental right from a group of citizens because of who they are."

Excellent news, WTG Utah

And now Nevada's attorney general has decided not to defend the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage in the court case before the 9th circuit. I could have predicted this one, because the marriage industry of Vegas and Reno wants the gay marriages to come there and not to neighboring states.

www.denverpost.com...

Nevada's attorney general and governor said Monday that they won't defend the state's gay marriage ban pending before a federal appeals court, saying a recent court decision made the state's arguments "no longer defensible."

Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto filed a motion with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that said Nevada's legal arguments supporting the voter-approved prohibition aren't viable in light of the court's recent ruling that said potential jurors cannot be removed from a trial during jury selection solely because of sexual orientation.

"After thoughtful review and analysis, the state has determined that its arguments grounded upon equal protection and due process are no longer sustainable," Masto said in a statement.

And here's a CNN report on the Nevada decision, a concise read of the situation. The first two graphs are quoted:

www.cnn.com...

Nevada won't defend its ban against same-sex marriage, saying its legal position has been "undermined" in a series of rulings that began last June with a historic U.S. Supreme Court ruling recognizing gay marriages.

The state's decision comes in a case filed by eight same-sex couples represented by the gay rights group Lambda Legal. The case challenged Nevada's constitutional amendment banning marriage for gay and lesbian couples, the group said.

Judg e: Ky. must recognize same-sex marriages

Here is a new update on the entire gay marriage debate and one that may give a path for those states that do not want to have such in them. And that would be to not perform such in their states, but allow for such to happen in other states, and recognize them as valid legal binding contracts. That way they are not performing the ceremony in their states, but upholding the contract as required by the constitution of the USA.

Homosexuality is against nature and god. The more we go down that path the more this nation will decline. No jobs, food, power outages, martial law......but hey, you can be a legal pervert.

No nation has ever survived a homosexual uprising in the history of mankind. The USA will collapse just like the others in history.
We are no better than them.

Many things can cause the destruction of a nation, but homosexuality is at the top of that list.