Gay couples as fit to adopt as heterosexuals: study (7 Viewers)

[GordoDeCentral]

However the benefits of marriage are. So extend those to the unwed or allow everyone to marry.

everyone is allowed to marry provided they find someone of the other sex who wants to marry them

- - - Updated - - -

But the right to family life is. The correct decision would have been to say that this right should be safeguarded. But gay marriage sounds better.

no one is stopping gays from having families though

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Enron]

everyone is allowed to marry provided they find someone of the other sex who wants to marry them

Why limit it to gender? Why not allow marriage between 2 consenting adults?

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Why limit it to gender? Why not allow marriage between 2 consenting adults?

why not call blue green, the law is not in the business of changing definitions which is why i said marriage is dead

 

[Seven]

everyone is allowed to marry provided they find someone of the other sex who wants to marry them

- - - Updated - - -



no one is stopping gays from having families though

There were in fact several problems if they exercised that right. The Supreme court decision does well in listing those. For instance only single gays could adopt. What if that partner died?

 

[Seven]

Why limit it to gender? Why not allow marriage between 2 consenting adults?

Because marriage, for thousands of years, has been linked with offspring.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

There were in fact several problems if they exercised that right. The Supreme court decision does well in listing those. For instance only single gays could adopt. What if that partner died?

same as when 2 unmarried heteros adopt?

 

[Enron]

why not call blue green, the law is not in the business of changing definitions which is why i said marriage is dead

The law changes all the time.

 

[Seven]

same as when 2 unmarried heteros adopt?

Yes, but they could overcome this by marriage while gays could not. Obviously that was a problem. But the solution should not have been gay marriage imo. At least not imposed by a court.

 

[Seven]

The law changes all the time.

It does. But it's not cool when a judge changes it.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

The law changes all the time.

law(supreme court) as you put doesnt have the jurisdiction to change the definition of marriage, it overreached its legal framework to give a feel good ruling

 

[Enron]

It does. But it's not cool when a judge changes it.

That's pretty much how most laws change. Legal precedent is challenged and defeated in the lower courts and upheld by judges in higher courts.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

That's pretty much how most laws change. Legal precedent is challenged and defeated in the lower courts and upheld by judges in higher courts.

wrong, new 'rights' are created through the amendment process, not judges legislating from the bench

 

[Seven]

That's pretty much how most laws change. Legal precedent is challenged and defeated in the lower courts and upheld by judges in higher courts.

Even in common law countries it doesn't work that way for everything.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Even in common law countries it doesn't work that way for everything.

 

[Enron]

wrong, new 'rights' are created through the amendment process, not judges legislating from the bench

I'm speaking of laws and your talking about "rights". Unfortunately in our country it usually takes a change in law to establish a right.

Do you honestly believe things like the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act would have come about with the Supreme Court's ruling on Brown v Board of Education? It's the horse before the cart, but sometimes these things are necessary to move the nation forward.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

I'm speaking of laws and your talking about "rights". Unfortunately in our country it usually takes a change in law to establish a right.

Do you honestly believe things like the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act would have come about with the Supreme Court's ruling on Brown v Board of Education? It's the horse before the cart, but sometimes these things are necessary to move the nation forward.

im sure it's justifiable all i am saying is that it was unconstitutional

 

[Enron]

im sure it's justifiable all i am saying is that it was unconstitutional

The constitution is merely a guide. Technically the Citizens United ruling was unconstitutional. But at least this one has the moral high ground.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

The constitution is merely a guide. Technically the Citizens United ruling was unconstitutional. But at least this one has the moral high ground.

you do know who you are sounding like here right?

 

[Enron]

you do know who you are sounding like here right?

I don't know and I don't particularly care.

 

[Seven]

I'm speaking of laws and your talking about "rights". Unfortunately in our country it usually takes a change in law to establish a right.

Do you honestly believe things like the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act would have come about with the Supreme Court's ruling on Brown v Board of Education? It's the horse before the cart, but sometimes these things are necessary to move the nation forward.

I don't disagree with the sentiment. But it's dangerous to set these precedents. I also don't think gay marriage is the same as blatant racism in the public sphere.