Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chron)   Utah argues in court that their ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional because the state wants to see children raised in the "ideal environment" of having a "mom and a dad", which is also why they outlawed divorce and single parents   (chron.com) divider line 175
    More: Asinine, Utah, National Center for Lesbian Rights, opponents of same-sex marriage, single-parent, child rearing, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Gary Herbert, United States courts of appeals  
•       •       •

1516 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Feb 2014 at 5:36 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



175 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-04 04:18:51 PM  
There's probably some snark to be made about platonic ideals and platonic relations, but my wits seems but a shadow if their usual character this afternoon.
 
2014-02-04 04:23:09 PM  
Brief available here.
 
2014-02-04 04:26:33 PM  
They would if they could.
 
2014-02-04 04:26:58 PM  
The ideal environment for children to be raised is an enriching and filled with people who love them unconditionally.
 
2014-02-04 04:27:48 PM  
Glad they outlawed widows and widowers with kids, as well.
"Your spouse died?  That is not ideal."
 
2014-02-04 04:30:09 PM  
Ideally a child would be raised in a nutrient sack deep within the earth until they've reached sufficient mass and are ready to be unleashed on the unsuspecting populace.  That's how I was raised and that's how I'll raise my offspring.
 
2014-02-04 04:31:54 PM  
Ideally, you should have a dad, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, and a mom.
 
2014-02-04 04:33:44 PM  

Serious Black: The ideal environment for children to be raised is an enriching and filled with people who love them unconditionally.


But not if that ideal environment includes homogays.
 
2014-02-04 04:39:27 PM  
farking mormons are horses asses.
I really can't even talk to them.
 
2014-02-04 04:41:11 PM  
...and marriage to/by post-menopausal women.

/give up, bigots...there is no good reason to ban same-sex marriage.  Just one bad reason: bigotry
 
2014-02-04 04:45:36 PM  

AntiGravitas: Glad they outlawed widows and widowers with kids, as well.
"Your spouse died?  That is not ideal."


Levirate marriages. Your spouse is dead? Marry your brother/sister-in-law!

Infertile people don't deserve marriage, and if you don't have kids by menopause, you're both single again! If you've been castrated by accident, or had a hysterectomy, no marriage for you, and if you get pregnant out of wedlock, time for a shotgun wedding, doesn't even matter to whom, that kid just needs a mommy and daddy.
 
2014-02-04 04:45:57 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Ideally, you should have a dad, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, and a mom.


I declare this post Fark's WIN OF THE DAYTM
 
2014-02-04 04:47:17 PM  
When your entire argument boils down to "Won't someone think of the (hypothetical) children!", you have a shiatty argument.
 
2014-02-04 04:48:37 PM  
So how many failed marriages are they going to allow you to have before they refuse to grant you your next license?
Are they going to remove children from divorced and or single parent homes and place them in foster homes with traditional families so they are raised by both a mother and father?
 
2014-02-04 04:51:07 PM  
So I guess they should outlaw abusive, predatory, violent and racist heterosexuals from marrying for the sake of "ideal environments" for children? Right? No?

Keep grasping at those bigoted straws while the waters of equity and rationality continue to rise around you, you f*ckwits.
 
2014-02-04 04:56:41 PM  

scottydoesntknow: When your entire argument boils down to "Won't someone think of the (hypothetical) children!", you have a shiatty argument.


I'm, not so sure.  My argument against allowing priests and ministers to be alone with a child generally follows that same vein.
 
2014-02-04 05:02:21 PM  

Serious Black: The ideal environment for children to be raised is an enriching and filled with people who love them unconditionally.


Republican Jesus says hate makes kids strong. The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal. Kids need to learn to channel their fear, use anger and hatred to overcome obstacles, smash enemies, and convert all tot the worship of the Christ, he of blood, skulls, peace and love. Republican Jesus cares not from whence the blood flows....he cares only that it should flow!
 
2014-02-04 05:02:45 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: scottydoesntknow: When your entire argument boils down to "Won't someone think of the (hypothetical) children!", you have a shiatty argument.

I'm, not so sure.  My argument against allowing priests and ministers to be alone with a child generally follows that same vein.


Ok, when the subject has nothing to do with children, and your entire argument boils down to "think of the children!" you have a shiatty argument.

Is that better?
 
2014-02-04 05:21:09 PM  
The problem here is a different factual understanding of the world.  Some of us think babies result from a sperm and an egg uniting in a great deal of methods, the most fun of which is sex between a man and a woman.  So banning gay marriage won't do shiat to change the environment children are raised in.  Maybe banning gay adoption would but not gay marriage.

The Utah prosecutor here thinks babies result from a special cuddle that only happens between married people and never outside of wedlock.  So if we let the icky gays get married, they'll cuddle and a baby will appear in daddy's tummy!
 
2014-02-04 05:24:36 PM  
If the courts were so concerned about children being raised in an ideal environment, they wouldn't let anyone have kids in Utah.

...
.

...


...

ZING!!!!
 
2014-02-04 05:27:36 PM  
Virginia v Love

Utah v Fabulous

Book it. Done
 
2014-02-04 05:28:58 PM  
The state contends redefining marriage poses "real, concrete risks to children" because not having a mother or father leads to emotional damage.

I was raised by a single mother and I don't have any emotional damage and I'LL CUT ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE.
 
2014-02-04 05:29:09 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Benevolent Misanthrope: scottydoesntknow: When your entire argument boils down to "Won't someone think of the (hypothetical) children!", you have a shiatty argument.

I'm, not so sure.  My argument against allowing priests and ministers to be alone with a child generally follows that same vein.

Ok, when the subject has nothing to do with children, and your entire argument boils down to "think of the children!" you have a shiatty argument.

Is that better?


OK, yes, I was being a wise-ass.  So sue me. ;)
 
2014-02-04 05:32:16 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: scottydoesntknow: Benevolent Misanthrope: scottydoesntknow: When your entire argument boils down to "Won't someone think of the (hypothetical) children!", you have a shiatty argument.

I'm, not so sure.  My argument against allowing priests and ministers to be alone with a child generally follows that same vein.

Ok, when the subject has nothing to do with children, and your entire argument boils down to "think of the children!" you have a shiatty argument.

Is that better?

OK, yes, I was being a wise-ass.  So sue me. ;)


So you're admitting you're making Fark less than an ideal environment?  I think this means we need to ban gay Fark marriages.
 
2014-02-04 05:32:39 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: scottydoesntknow: Benevolent Misanthrope: scottydoesntknow: When your entire argument boils down to "Won't someone think of the (hypothetical) children!", you have a shiatty argument.

I'm, not so sure.  My argument against allowing priests and ministers to be alone with a child generally follows that same vein.

Ok, when the subject has nothing to do with children, and your entire argument boils down to "think of the children!" you have a shiatty argument.

Is that better?

OK, yes, I was being a wise-ass.  So sue me. ;)


Haha I know, and didn't mean to sound pissed. A shiatty day at work apparently translates to a shiatty attitude online.
 
2014-02-04 05:41:31 PM  
People who say this obviously must think childless marriages are sham too.

I would like to give these people are hard kick in their nuts.

Funny they same gay marriage attacks traditional marriages. I never once had a gay couple question "traditional" marriage as valid. However on the other hand I have had these people question traditional ones without children.
 
2014-02-04 05:41:31 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Ideally, you should have a dad, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, and a mom.


Sounds ideal to me
 
2014-02-04 05:42:55 PM  

JerseyTim: If the courts were so concerned about children being raised in an ideal environment, they wouldn't let anyone have kids in Utah.



Pretty much that.  Considering how farked the Mormons have been by having their traditions made illegal historically, you'd think they'd be more tolerant of other people's whenever they could.

Then... they kind of  deserve to have their traditions suppressed, since to find any that are more blatantly antisocial you have to head back to the british civil wars and Cromwell.
 
2014-02-04 05:44:35 PM  
It's ideal to raise kids when you make over six figures.  Time to sterilize those poors.
 
2014-02-04 05:44:40 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Ideally, you should have a dad, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, a mom, and a mom.


In fact, forget the kids!
 
2014-02-04 05:45:05 PM  

lennavan: The problem here is a different factual understanding of the world.  Some of us think babies result from a sperm and an egg uniting in a great deal of methods, the most fun of which is sex between a man and a woman.  So banning gay marriage won't do shiat to change the environment children are raised in.  Maybe banning gay adoption would but not gay marriage.

The Utah prosecutor here thinks babies result from a special cuddle that only happens between married people and never outside of wedlock.  So if we let the icky gays get married, they'll cuddle and a baby will appear in daddy's tummy!


And that would be horrible because only mommies have the special tummies so they don't digest the baby.
 
2014-02-04 05:45:41 PM  
Not seeing any form of Constitutional Mandate covering the composition of marriages or families.
 
2014-02-04 05:47:23 PM  
I love how they keep trying this route even though it gets smacked down every time.

/enjoyed when they tried it before the NJSC
 
2014-02-04 05:47:38 PM  

AntiGravitas: Glad they outlawed widows and widowers with kids, as well.
"Your spouse died?  That is not ideal."


Keep in mind this is Utah. In their ideal marriage;if a spouse were to die there should still be several more in the family unit. If not, state sponsored marriage counselors such as Warren Jeffs would be available to assist.
 
2014-02-04 05:47:39 PM  
I commend the gay community fighting this.

But I don't know why they don't just take their business and leave.

Or simply compare Utah to Russia. Either or
 
2014-02-04 05:48:36 PM  
But if two guys can't make a baby and two girls can't make a baby why are they talking about what is best for the children and gay marriage?
 
2014-02-04 05:50:46 PM  

James!: Ideally a child would be raised in a nutrient sack deep within the earth until they've reached sufficient mass and are ready to be unleashed on the unsuspecting populace.  That's how I was raised and that's how I'll raise my offspring.


Well, it's like they say: the world needs nutrient sack hole diggers too.
 
2014-02-04 05:50:59 PM  
"The diversity of having both a mom and a dad is the ideal parenting environment," wrote Gene Schaerr, an outside attorney who has been hired by the state to defend the law. "That model is not intended to demean other family structures, any more than giving an A to some students demeans others."

Oh ok, then he isn't using this then to say that gays shouldn't marry? -Oh no he is just lying. It in fact IS being used to demean other structures.
 
2014-02-04 05:52:14 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Benevolent Misanthrope: scottydoesntknow: Benevolent Misanthrope: scottydoesntknow: When your entire argument boils down to "Won't someone think of the (hypothetical) children!", you have a shiatty argument.

I'm, not so sure.  My argument against allowing priests and ministers to be alone with a child generally follows that same vein.

Ok, when the subject has nothing to do with children, and your entire argument boils down to "think of the children!" you have a shiatty argument.

Is that better?

OK, yes, I was being a wise-ass.  So sue me. ;)

Haha I know, and didn't mean to sound pissed. A shiatty day at work apparently translates to a shiatty attitude online.


LOL - it's not like I need a reason most days.
 
2014-02-04 05:52:32 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: ...and marriage to/by post-menopausal women.

/give up, bigots...there is no good reason to ban same-sex marriage.  Just one bad reason: bigotry


Their line about how they don't want the children exposed to this is a lie. Its a bullshiat excuse to hide the real reason: THEY THEMSELVES don't want to be exposed to it.
 
2014-02-04 05:53:04 PM  

lennavan: Benevolent Misanthrope: scottydoesntknow: Benevolent Misanthrope: scottydoesntknow: When your entire argument boils down to "Won't someone think of the (hypothetical) children!", you have a shiatty argument.

I'm, not so sure.  My argument against allowing priests and ministers to be alone with a child generally follows that same vein.

Ok, when the subject has nothing to do with children, and your entire argument boils down to "think of the children!" you have a shiatty argument.

Is that better?

OK, yes, I was being a wise-ass.  So sue me. ;)

So you're admitting you're making Fark less than an ideal environment?  I think this means we need to ban gay Fark marriages.


No one has ever asked to gay marry me on Fark.  :,-(
 
2014-02-04 05:53:48 PM  
It is unfathomable that they cannot see the glaring, indeed GAPING HOLES, in their argument.
 
2014-02-04 05:53:59 PM  
"The diversity of having both a mom and a dad is the ideal parenting environment," wrote Gene Schaerr, an outside attorney who has been hired by the state to defend the law. "That model is not intended to demean other family structures, any more than giving an A to some students demeans others."

Seriously this drives me crazy because it's such an out and out lie. If it's not demeaning it then why wouldn't it have the same legal standing as "mom & dad" marriages?
 
2014-02-04 05:54:17 PM  
I like the idea of repossessing kids.

Have a giant wagon with bars on it, roll up, toss the kids in, and explain to the parent that they're losing their kids but they can pick up the little ragamuffins at the storage yard with the proper paperwork anytime in the next 60 days.

After that, the kids get parted out to hospitals and the unusable parts go to a mass scrap yard.
 
2014-02-04 05:54:50 PM  
Don't forget the 'ideal environment' of parents shunning a child who turns out to be gay... or one who decides to leave the church.
 
2014-02-04 05:54:52 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: lennavan: Benevolent Misanthrope: scottydoesntknow: Benevolent Misanthrope: scottydoesntknow: When your entire argument boils down to "Won't someone think of the (hypothetical) children!", you have a shiatty argument.

I'm, not so sure.  My argument against allowing priests and ministers to be alone with a child generally follows that same vein.

Ok, when the subject has nothing to do with children, and your entire argument boils down to "think of the children!" you have a shiatty argument.

Is that better?

OK, yes, I was being a wise-ass.  So sue me. ;)

So you're admitting you're making Fark less than an ideal environment?  I think this means we need to ban gay Fark marriages.

No one has ever asked to gay marry me on Fark.  :,-(


I can't, you're a female (iirc) :/
 
2014-02-04 05:57:38 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: lennavan: Benevolent Misanthrope: scottydoesntknow: Benevolent Misanthrope: scottydoesntknow: When your entire argument boils down to "Won't someone think of the (hypothetical) children!", you have a shiatty argument.

I'm, not so sure.  My argument against allowing priests and ministers to be alone with a child generally follows that same vein.

Ok, when the subject has nothing to do with children, and your entire argument boils down to "think of the children!" you have a shiatty argument.

Is that better?

OK, yes, I was being a wise-ass.  So sue me. ;)

So you're admitting you're making Fark less than an ideal environment?  I think this means we need to ban gay Fark marriages.

No one has ever asked to gay marry me on Fark.  :,-(


Might I suggest you up the fabulous level?
 
2014-02-04 05:57:58 PM  

The Most Uninteresting Man in the World: It's ideal to raise kids when you make over six figures.  Time to sterilize those poors.


No the Romneys may need to adopt more kids.
 
2014-02-04 05:59:12 PM  

James!: Ideally a child would be raised in a nutrient sack deep within the earth until they've reached sufficient mass and are ready to be unleashed on the unsuspecting populace.  That's how I was raised and that's how I'll raise my offspring.


static1.wikia.nocookie.net
approves
 
2014-02-04 06:00:59 PM  
yeah... good luck with that
 
Displayed 50 of 175 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report