# Poll.  Please Vote.  Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?



## Silhouette

So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.


----------



## Dhara

I suspect you have an agenda, and view about it already.


----------



## Preacher

Yep. They divorced when I was 8 went to live with my dad at 13...treated me more like a friend than his son he wasn't strict enough etc Mother remarried and was busy with college and my siblings..I was the trouble maker...has nothing to do with my politics but lol...interesting poll.


----------



## Silhouette

Dhara said:


> I suspect you have an agenda, and view about it already.


I suspect you do too, which is why you voted "independent"..."no" and "no"...


----------



## mdk

Funny how that doesn't matter to you when children are raised in single parent homes. Suddenly all that matters is the _hope_. Too funny. 

Get a life and worry about your own household, Mrs. Kravitz.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where's the, Wish I'd missed out on this hell on earth option?


----------



## theDoctorisIn

I'm neither a Democrat, a Moderate, or a Republican, and none of your options describe my family life.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.



And thread number 48 on the topic.

Plus the 29 you created on your own message board where only you post, talking to yourself.

Plus your website dedicated to the exact same topic where you refer to yourself in the 3rd person and seek donations.

This is what mental illness looks like.


----------



## Skylar

Dhara said:


> I suspect you have an agenda, and view about it already.



Wait until you see her website on the topic.


----------



## Judicial review

Yes very important. My father taught me to fuck the ass and my mother taught me to take it in the ass. We are the fucking Brady bunch family


----------



## Kat

theDoctorisIn said:


> I'm neither a Democrat, a Moderate, or a Republican, and none of your options describe my family life.





Same for me....except I did have both parents in my life...and they were married til death do us part.


----------



## Silhouette

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where's the, Wish I'd missed out on this hell on earth option?



In the voting booth, where you can change hell on earth with the strike of a pen..


----------



## Gracie

what the FUCK does political party have to do with whether someone had a mother and father in their life?

Stupid.

/thread
/poll


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Kat said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm neither a Democrat, a Moderate, or a Republican, and none of your options describe my family life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same for me....except I did have both parents in my life...and they were married til death do us part.
Click to expand...


My story is a little more complicated.


----------



## Skylar

Gracie said:


> what the FUCK does political party have to do with whether someone had a mother and father in their life?
> 
> Stupid.
> 
> /thread
> /poll



Its a lead in to Sil's all consuming obsession: her hatred of gays.


----------



## mdk

Gracie said:


> what the FUCK does political party have to do with whether someone had a mother and father in their life?
> 
> Stupid.
> 
> /thread
> /poll



This is just another of Sil's lame anti-queer smears.


----------



## Silhouette

Gracie said:


> what the FUCK does political party have to do with whether someone had a mother and father in their life?
> 
> Stupid.


I changed the poll so people who want to select "Other" can..


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the, Wish I'd missed out on this hell on earth option?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the voting booth, where you can change hell on earth with the strike of a pen..
Click to expand...

Not even close.

This is a planet for evil, and only the evil like it.  Even your insanity rejects what happens here.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> I changed the poll so people who want to select "Other" can..



Why didn't you add a _hope_ option as well?


----------



## Silhouette

PaintMyHouse said:


> This is a planet for evil, and only the evil like it.  Even your insanity rejects what happens here.



I'm sorry for you.  I've had thousands and thousands of hours of delight watching sunsets, birds, nature, children playing, walking my dog, riding horses, swimming, backpacking, late night chats with friends, productive inventing, potluck dinners, basketball games, skin diving, fishing, 4x4ing, touring Europe and the ancient places.  This world you can extract the positive from or think of it as evil.  And it will become what you think of it.


----------



## Pete7469

theDoctorisIn said:


> I'm neither a Democrat, a Moderate, or a Republican, and none of your options describe my family life.



You're an idiot that crawled out of a dumpster behind a Planned Parenthood clinic in Taxachusettes and was raised by carnival folk.

OK...

I'll stop being nice.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Pete7469 said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm neither a Democrat, a Moderate, or a Republican, and none of your options describe my family life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot that crawled out of a dumpster behind a Planned Parenthood clinic in Taxachusettes and was raised by carnival folk.
> 
> OK...
> 
> I'll stop being nice.
Click to expand...




Weak.


----------



## BULLDOG

If you're so worried about kids, why don't you have a poll that asks  if it is better for a kid to have a loving home even if that home only has one parent or two same sex parents or is it better for them to grow up in foster homes and orphanages and never have a family who loves them?


----------



## mdk

What exactly makes this a current event?


----------



## Pete7469

I only vote republicrat because they're supposed to be the opposition to the neo-bolshevik democrook party.

My old lady can be a real pain in the ass sometimes, but she's the best old lady in the world because I can't ask for more. Few people on earth care for their kids and home better than my old lady. Even if I could ask for more, I wouldn't. The most important thing in my life id for my kids to grow up in a 2 parent home, because when my parents split up it was the worst thing that happened in my life.

Until I married my first wife, but when I found a wetback split tail that couldn't cook it should have been a red flag. The pussy was great, everything else was a disaster. Thank God I didn't get that succubus pregnant.


----------



## theHawk

theDoctorisIn said:


> I'm neither a Democrat, a Moderate, or a Republican, and none of your options describe my family life.



He didn't describe a two fathers scenario?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

My parents were married in 1956.  I, their oldest child, was born in 1962.  My parents remained married until my father's death, in 2008.

  My father, by example, showed me how to be a man.  In his relationship with my mother, he provided the example by which I know how to relate to my own wife.

  My mother showed me what to expect of a woman, and her example is also crucial in my knowing how to relate to my wife.

  I remain firmly convinced that my life outcome is better than it would have been if I had been deprived of the advantage of having both a father and a mother, who were faithful in their marriage to one another, and diligent in their responsibilities toward each other and to me and my siblings.

  I remain convinced,also, that many of the ills that plague modern society are a fairly direct result of too many children being deprived of this crucial family structure, and growing up without the example that can only be provided by this family structure.

  Long before I was born, society wisely and correctly recognized the tragic consequences that arose when children came from “a broken home”.  Today, too many “families” are broken by design.


----------



## Pete7469

theDoctorisIn said:


> Weak.



Weak? Bullshit!!  That was the best retort USMB ever saw. In fact I'm going to give myself an accolade.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Silhouette said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect you have an agenda, and view about it already.
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect you do too, which is why you voted "independent"..."no" and "no"...
Click to expand...


  So far, out of nine votes, the only one who dismisses the importance of both a mother and a father.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> What exactly makes this a current event?


Because the question of removing children from the hope of either a mother or father for life as a matter of contract is a current event.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Bob Blaylock said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect you have an agenda, and view about it already.
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect you do too, which is why you voted "independent"..."no" and "no"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far, out of nine votes, the only one who dismisses the importance of both a mother and a father.
Click to expand...

What she can't work out is "important" could be good, neutral, or bad...


----------



## MarathonMike

Sounds like somebody needs a Snickers bar.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

theHawk said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm neither a Democrat, a Moderate, or a Republican, and none of your options describe my family life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't describe a two fathers scenario?
Click to expand...


 

Was that supposed to be insulting?


----------



## Silhouette

Imagine three generations of all gay men.  No mothers, no grandmothers.  The boys and girls caught up in that would have such a great life experience!  Fast forward 100 years.  Think about it..


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Imagine three generations of all gay men.  No mothers, no grandmothers.  The boys and girls caught up in that would have such a great life experience!  Fast forward 100 years.  Think about it..



'Imagine' being the operative word.


----------



## bucs90

I voted yes, republican and it was important.

But...you should've had one that said yes, republican, and my parents weren't faggots. That would fit better.


----------



## Dhara

Silhouette said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect you have an agenda, and view about it already.
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect you do too, which is why you voted "independent"..."no" and "no"...
Click to expand...

I didn't vote at all in your poll.  Why should I?


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

Well my biological mother had four children by four different men, and my biological father had a few children out of wedlock, and I grew up with a Jewish Aunt and Unitarian Uncle that almost divorced many times over and I was reminded that I was the bastard child of my Aunt Half-Sister, so how does this having two parents of opposite sex suppose to work in your delusional world you live in?

Where were you to stop my biological mother and father from their sins?

Wait, they were heterosexual so who gives a damn, right?

So pardon me but fuck you, your poll, and again fuck you!

If a kid has two loving beings that raise them to know wrong from right and it is Adam and Steve or Butch and Lipstick Mom then I could give a flying fuck because I have known many heterosexual parents that should not have been allowed to breed, and before you write about those that made me, well I told them that to their fucking face, so there you have it!


----------



## bucs90

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Well my biological mother had four children by four different men, and my biological father had a few children out of wedlock, and I grew up with a Jewish Aunt and Unitarian Uncle that almost divorced many times over and I was reminded that I was the bastard child of my Aunt Half-Sister, so how does this having two parents of opposite sex suppose to work in your delusional world you live in?
> 
> Where were you to stop my biological mother and father from their sins?
> 
> Wait, they were heterosexual so who gives a damn, right?
> 
> So pardon me but fuck you, your poll, and again fuck you!
> 
> If a kid has two loving beings that raise them to know wrong from right and it is Adam and Steve or Butch and Lipstick Mom then I could give a flying fuck because I have known many heterosexual parents that should not have been allowed to breed, and before you write about those that made me, well I told them that to their fucking face, so there you have it!



Haha...you had bad parents...


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

bucs90 said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well my biological mother had four children by four different men, and my biological father had a few children out of wedlock, and I grew up with a Jewish Aunt and Unitarian Uncle that almost divorced many times over and I was reminded that I was the bastard child of my Aunt Half-Sister, so how does this having two parents of opposite sex suppose to work in your delusional world you live in?
> 
> Where were you to stop my biological mother and father from their sins?
> 
> Wait, they were heterosexual so who gives a damn, right?
> 
> So pardon me but fuck you, your poll, and again fuck you!
> 
> If a kid has two loving beings that raise them to know wrong from right and it is Adam and Steve or Butch and Lipstick Mom then I could give a flying fuck because I have known many heterosexual parents that should not have been allowed to breed, and before you write about those that made me, well I told them that to their fucking face, so there you have it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...you had bad parents...
Click to expand...


Really?

The fact she never raised me and her half-sister did make it clear she was never a mother, and the guy that did the humping was not my Uncle, so I had no real parents, but hey I am happy you find that funny...

What a good fucking Christian you and the OP'er are...

I mean let be factual you and the OP'er don't care about the child but the crazy idea of denying the child a chance to be raised with a loving couple. 

You and the OP'er would prefer a child to be raised by two heterosexual parents that beat the shit out of the kid, but if a gay couple were offer a chance to take the kid in you would demand the state to keep the kid in the abusive household instead, because hey at least the abusive household is Heterosexual...

Love it when so-call Christians spew their stupidity, and before you go run off to link the countless of sites where gay couples abuse their adopted children or their children that they created with the opposite sex, well there are evil assholes from all walks of life, so fuck you...


----------



## bucs90

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well my biological mother had four children by four different men, and my biological father had a few children out of wedlock, and I grew up with a Jewish Aunt and Unitarian Uncle that almost divorced many times over and I was reminded that I was the bastard child of my Aunt Half-Sister, so how does this having two parents of opposite sex suppose to work in your delusional world you live in?
> 
> Where were you to stop my biological mother and father from their sins?
> 
> Wait, they were heterosexual so who gives a damn, right?
> 
> So pardon me but fuck you, your poll, and again fuck you!
> 
> If a kid has two loving beings that raise them to know wrong from right and it is Adam and Steve or Butch and Lipstick Mom then I could give a flying fuck because I have known many heterosexual parents that should not have been allowed to breed, and before you write about those that made me, well I told them that to their fucking face, so there you have it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...you had bad parents...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> The fact she never raised me and her half-sister did make it clear she was never a mother, and the guy that did the humping was not my Uncle, so I had no real parents, but hey I am happy you find that funny...
> 
> What a good fucking Christian you and the OP'er are...
> 
> I mean let be factual you and the OP'er don't care about the child but the crazy idea of denying the child a chance to be raised with a loving couple.
> 
> You and the OP'er would prefer a child to be raised by two heterosexual parents that beat the shit out of the kid, but if a gay couple were offer a chance to take the kid in you would demand the state to keep the kid in the abusive household instead, because hey at least the abusive household is Heterosexual...
> 
> Love it when so-call Christians spew their stupidity, and before you go run off to link the countless of sites where gay couples abuse their adopted children or their children that they created with the opposite sex, well there are evil assholes from all walks of life, so fuck you...
Click to expand...


Haha you said O P


----------



## pwjohn

Silhouette said:


> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.



What's it to ya bub ?


----------



## mdk

bucs90 said:


> I voted yes, republican and it was important.
> 
> But...you should've had one that said yes, republican, and my parents weren't faggots. That would fit better.



You prove all the time that one doesn't have to be gay to be a faggot.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly makes this a current event?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the question of removing children from the hope of either a mother or father for life as a matter of contract is a current event.
Click to expand...


Is this where you cite entertainment law or your imagination? My guess is a little of both.


----------



## Silhouette

You like bumping my threads with ad hominems, don't you?  As many times as you've been warned about that, they give you a free rein here.  Almost feels like a form of free speech suppression..


----------



## Silhouette

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Well my biological mother had four children by four different men, and my biological father had a few children out of wedlock, and I grew up with a Jewish Aunt and Unitarian Uncle that almost divorced many times over and I was reminded that I was the bastard child of my Aunt Half-Sister, so how does this having two parents of opposite sex suppose to work in your delusional world you live in?
> 
> Where were you to stop my biological mother and father from their sins?..Wait, they were heterosexual so who gives a damn, right?...So pardon me but fuck you, your poll, and again fuck you!...If a kid has two loving beings that raise them to know wrong from right and it is Adam and Steve or Butch and Lipstick Mom then I could give a flying fuck because I have known many heterosexual parents that should not have been allowed to breed, and before you write about those that made me, well I told them that to their fucking face, so there you have it!



Your horrible exceptions cannot be used to set the rule for other children.  In fact, without realizing it, your statement has just made a stronger case for preserving traditional marriage as it has always been.  We don't set rules for the sad exceptions...we set rule of law for how we want things to be.  Divorce exists for people like you caught in that situation.  Even in divorce the courts seek to keep chaperoned (if necessary) contact between children and a mother and father they knew. I know quite a few divorcees in contact with their kids who grew up and started treating each other better so their contact with the kids, both mother and father, could continue.  All wound up better off than the original bad marriage.  Bad marriages happen.  But that doesn't mean you torpedo the skeletal structure of marriage and say "anything goes!!"... there are kids involved...as you so aptly pointed out...

A girl might have the same intensity of cries of woe you just displayed for forced legal-lack of a mother in her life.  A boy might have the same intensity of cries of woe you just displayed for lack of a father in his life.  Would you wish your angst on them?  Would you? 

Two loving beings could be anything...two dudes using each other's anus as an artificial vagina...a brother and sister...a father and daughter....  And why just two?  Very arbitrary and discriminatory of you towards polygamists...your legal twin...


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> You like bumping my threads with ad hominems, don't you?  As many times as you've been warned about that, they give you a free rein here.  Almost feels like a form of free speech suppression..





I've never once been warned about participating in your threads. You have almost 50 threads on this forum alone whining about queers so spare me your sullen tears about free speech suppression, crybaby.


----------



## Silhouette

Speaking of crybabies...  of the 18 people who have voted on the poll, only one so far said they didn't believe a mother and father are important to them.  The other 94.4% of voters said they felt both a mother and father were important to them.  So, one has to wonder if these folks would consider both a mother and father important to other children...


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Speaking of crybabies...  of the 18 people who have voted on the poll, only one so far said they didn't believe a mother and father are important to them.  The other 94.4% of voters said they felt both a mother and father were important to them.  So, one has to wonder if these folks would consider both a mother and father important to other children...



Only state doesn't gays to adopt (presently being challenged) and all states allow gays to raise children. I bet from now you claim that 94.4% of the people here do not support gays raising children as a result of your poll. lol


----------



## rightwinger

Silhouette said:


> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.



All those options and you left off....God hates Fags!


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Speaking of crybabies...  of the 18 people who have voted on the poll, only one so far said they didn't believe a mother and father are important to them.  The other 94.4% of voters said they felt both a mother and father were important to them.  So, one has to wonder if these folks would consider both a mother and father important to other children...





mdk said:


> Only state doesn't gays to adopt (presently being challenged) and all states allow gays to raise children. I bet from now you claim that 94.4% of the people here do not support gays raising children as a result of your poll. lol



Just because states have been afraid of the crybully career-wrecking LGBT fear-campaign...doesn't mean when the topic of motherless/fatherless children comes up, they'll continue to shudder...


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of crybabies...  of the 18 people who have voted on the poll, only one so far said they didn't believe a mother and father are important to them.  The other 94.4% of voters said they felt both a mother and father were important to them.  So, one has to wonder if these folks would consider both a mother and father important to other children...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only state doesn't gays to adopt (presently being challenged) and all states allow gays to raise children. I bet from now you claim that 94.4% of the people here do not support gays raising children as a result of your poll. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because states have been afraid of the crybully career-wrecking LGBT fear-campaign...doesn't mean when the topic of motherless/fatherless children comes up, they'll continue to shudder...
Click to expand...


The only fear campaign that is occurring here is yours and it is failing miserably. So what is your end game here? Removing all children from the homes of gay people? Every time I have asked you this question you scamper off or change the subject. I suspect this time will not be any different either.


----------



## Fang

Not sure the reason for this poll. But IMO having both parents is crucial to a child's development.


----------



## SeniorChief_Polock

Most Liberal men had TWO fathers and were "dick fed," vs. breast fed... I don't see that in the survey. You're missing out on a lot of posters here who fall into that category...


----------



## SassyIrishLass

I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.


----------



## Silhouette

SassyIrishLass said:


> I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.


One poster here talked about being a man who grew up with both mom and dad like almost everyone did....or longed to do anyway...  90-something % above...  He said that not only was having a father important to give himself a sense of male identity, but also a mother to teach him how to relate to other women...namely his wife today.  

I keep saying "important for boys to have dads and girls to have moms"...but equally important is for the child to learn how to relate to the opposite gender which is something they'll have to know how to do well to be functional and healthy adults..


----------



## bucs90

I was one of those too. Certain things a child can only learn from a dad and a mom. Or a male and female. Or however the fuck we are supposed to say it these days.

Mine divorced when I was 10. But they were VERY good at being civil about it and I had a great upbringing with shared visitation.

I honestly think I was better off with  male/female parents who were divorced than if I had 2 c-fag parents who were together. That would've fucked me up.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.
> 
> 
> 
> One poster here talked about being a man who grew up with both mom and dad like almost everyone did....or longed to do anyway...  90-something % above...  He said that not only was having a father important to give himself a sense of male identity, but also a mother to teach him how to relate to other women...namely his wife today.
> 
> I keep saying "important for boys to have dads and girls to have moms"...but equally important is for the child to learn how to relate to the opposite gender which is something they'll have to know how to do well to be functional and healthy adults..
Click to expand...


You should take a look at the Prince's Trust study from 2010. Its not a 'mother' or 'father' as much as a good same sex role model. This could be a same sex parent, or an aunt/uncle. Grandparent, Coach, Family friend, Pastor, Mentor, etc.

Its why the Prince's Trust runs an elaborate mentoring program.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> You should take a look at the Prince's Trust study from 2010. Its not a 'mother' or 'father' that is the key. But a good same sex role model. This could be a same sex parent, or an aunt/uncle. *Grandparent*, Coach, Family friend, Pastor, Mentor, etc.
> 
> Its why the Prince's Trust runs an elaborate mentoring program.



What if, like in 100 years from now, the child has nothing but all male "parents" and "grandparents"?  (given this is a cultural movement...totally predictable scenario) Two dads and four grandads?  How would that child access a grandmother in that scenario?


----------



## bucs90

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.
> 
> 
> 
> One poster here talked about being a man who grew up with both mom and dad like almost everyone did....or longed to do anyway...  90-something % above...  He said that not only was having a father important to give himself a sense of male identity, but also a mother to teach him how to relate to other women...namely his wife today.
> 
> I keep saying "important for boys to have dads and girls to have moms"...but equally important is for the child to learn how to relate to the opposite gender which is something they'll have to know how to do well to be functional and healthy adults..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should take a look at the Prince's Trust study from 2010. Its not a 'mother' or 'father' that is the key. But a good same sex role model. This could be a same sex parent, or an aunt/uncle. Grandparent, Coach, Family friend, Pastor, Mentor, etc.
> 
> Its why the Prince's Trust runs an elaborate mentoring program.
Click to expand...


That's valid. It's why the black community is so devastated by crime....most boys grow up without a father. But Dems don't like to talk about that, they'd rather blame white cops.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should take a look at the Prince's Trust study from 2010. Its not a 'mother' or 'father' that is the key. But a good same sex role model. This could be a same sex parent, or an aunt/uncle. *Grandparent*, Coach, Family friend, Pastor, Mentor, etc.
> 
> Its why the Prince's Trust runs an elaborate mentoring program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if, like in 100 years from now, the child has nothing but all male "parents" and "grandparents"?  Two dads and four grandads?  How would that child access a grandmother in that scenario?
Click to expand...


Then you'd still have aunts, uncles, family friends, teachers, coaches, pastors, mentors and a litanny of other common sources to draw good same sex role models from.


----------



## Skylar

bucs90 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.
> 
> 
> 
> One poster here talked about being a man who grew up with both mom and dad like almost everyone did....or longed to do anyway...  90-something % above...  He said that not only was having a father important to give himself a sense of male identity, but also a mother to teach him how to relate to other women...namely his wife today.
> 
> I keep saying "important for boys to have dads and girls to have moms"...but equally important is for the child to learn how to relate to the opposite gender which is something they'll have to know how to do well to be functional and healthy adults..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should take a look at the Prince's Trust study from 2010. Its not a 'mother' or 'father' that is the key. But a good same sex role model. This could be a same sex parent, or an aunt/uncle. Grandparent, Coach, Family friend, Pastor, Mentor, etc.
> 
> Its why the Prince's Trust runs an elaborate mentoring program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's valid. It's why the black community is so devastated by crime....most boys grow up without a father. But Dems don't like to talk about that, they'd rather blame white cops.
Click to expand...


A good same sex role model doesn't need to be a parent. And in fact many parents make awful role models. But a good same sex role model can provide a variety of benefits and dramatically increase the odds of a good outcome for a child.


----------



## Silhouette

bucs90 said:


> That's valid. It's why the black community is so devastated by crime....most boys grow up without a father. But Dems don't like to talk about that, they'd rather blame white cops.



And now black boys can be legally kept from ever having a father, even the hope of having a father if two "married" lesbians adopt him.. I'm sure this will result in really great things!


----------



## Silhouette

We have 1 democrat who voted "yes I had a mom and dad, and no it wasn't important to me".


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's valid. It's why the black community is so devastated by crime....most boys grow up without a father. But Dems don't like to talk about that, they'd rather blame white cops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now black boys can be legally kept from ever having a father, even the hope of having a father if two "married" lesbians adopt him.. I'm sure this will result in really great things!
Click to expand...


If fathers were the only source of good same sex role models, you might have a point. But they aren't. The Prince's Trust runs an extensive mentoring program to help children to be matched up with such good role models.

And presumably, none of the men and women participating in the Mentoring program need be family members of those being mentored.


----------



## longknife

Silhouette said:


> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.



I grew up thinking I had a mother and father - although it was a disfunctional situation. Dad was a mean drunk. Mom had no spine. Grandmother taking over where parents didn't

BUT - on my 18th birthday, in front of an Army recruiter, I learned they were my parents at all! 

Have no idea who my birth parents are and don't really give a darned.

One day, I'm going the DNA analysis bit to get some idea what my heritage is.


----------



## Skylar

longknife said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up thinking I had a mother and father - although it was a disfunctional situation. Dad was a mean drunk. Mom had no spine. Grandmother taking over where parents didn't
> 
> BUT - on my 18th birthday, in front of an Army recruiter, I learned they were my parents at all!
> 
> Have no idea who my birth parents are and don't really give a darned.
> 
> One day, I'm going the DNA analysis bit to get some idea what my heritage is.
Click to expand...


you learned that they were....or weren't your parents?


----------



## bucs90

Skylar said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.
> 
> 
> 
> One poster here talked about being a man who grew up with both mom and dad like almost everyone did....or longed to do anyway...  90-something % above...  He said that not only was having a father important to give himself a sense of male identity, but also a mother to teach him how to relate to other women...namely his wife today.
> 
> I keep saying "important for boys to have dads and girls to have moms"...but equally important is for the child to learn how to relate to the opposite gender which is something they'll have to know how to do well to be functional and healthy adults..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should take a look at the Prince's Trust study from 2010. Its not a 'mother' or 'father' that is the key. But a good same sex role model. This could be a same sex parent, or an aunt/uncle. Grandparent, Coach, Family friend, Pastor, Mentor, etc.
> 
> Its why the Prince's Trust runs an elaborate mentoring program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's valid. It's why the black community is so devastated by crime....most boys grow up without a father. But Dems don't like to talk about that, they'd rather blame white cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A good same sex role model doesn't need to be a parent. And in fact many parents make awful role models. But a good same sex role model can provide a variety of benefits and dramatically increase the odds of a good outcome for a child.
Click to expand...


That's another valid point. Many fatherless kids who embrace sports can get that from their coach. One of the best things we can do in the ghetto, and it's cheap, is to invest in large community sports programs and hire great men as coaches. 1 great football coach can be that father figure to a team of 50 kids. Do the math!!

It's not the permanent answer but it's a bridge to one.

Will never happen though. Residents would rather that money go towards more welfare.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Silhouette said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.
> 
> 
> 
> One poster here talked about being a man who grew up with both mom and dad like almost everyone did....or longed to do anyway...  90-something % above...  He said that not only was having a father important to give himself a sense of male identity, but also a mother to teach him how to relate to other women...namely his wife today.
> 
> I keep saying "important for boys to have dads and girls to have moms"...but equally important is for the child to learn how to relate to the opposite gender which is something they'll have to know how to do well to be functional and healthy adults..
Click to expand...


A child needs both a mother and a father, each has it's role in development.


----------



## Skylar

bucs90 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.
> 
> 
> 
> One poster here talked about being a man who grew up with both mom and dad like almost everyone did....or longed to do anyway...  90-something % above...  He said that not only was having a father important to give himself a sense of male identity, but also a mother to teach him how to relate to other women...namely his wife today.
> 
> I keep saying "important for boys to have dads and girls to have moms"...but equally important is for the child to learn how to relate to the opposite gender which is something they'll have to know how to do well to be functional and healthy adults..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should take a look at the Prince's Trust study from 2010. Its not a 'mother' or 'father' that is the key. But a good same sex role model. This could be a same sex parent, or an aunt/uncle. Grandparent, Coach, Family friend, Pastor, Mentor, etc.
> 
> Its why the Prince's Trust runs an elaborate mentoring program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's valid. It's why the black community is so devastated by crime....most boys grow up without a father. But Dems don't like to talk about that, they'd rather blame white cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A good same sex role model doesn't need to be a parent. And in fact many parents make awful role models. But a good same sex role model can provide a variety of benefits and dramatically increase the odds of a good outcome for a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's another valid point. Many fatherless kids who embrace sports can get that from their coach. One of the best things we can do in the ghetto, and it's cheap, is to invest in large community sports programs and hire great men as coaches. 1 great football coach can be that father figure to a team of 50 kids. Do the math!!
Click to expand...


I think that's a solid idea. I'd also say that churches are a superb source of good same sex role models. While churches catch anecdotal shit about child molesting, their influence is overwhelmingly positive for children in need of a good same sex role model.

For highschool students I think a Prince's Trust style mentoring program would also be a great idea. Matching up professionals with young men and women  who need a same sex mentor. It would be especially effective is accompanied by vocational programs where the mentors worked in the profession the child was studying for.

I'm a huge fan of higher education and have degrees myself. But not everyone is a good fit for it. Vocational programs can help serve those who aren't well suited (by temperament, ability or interest) for college  but may be very well suited for a vocational profession. Having the real prospect of a career and career path would be a powerful motivator to convince more of these kids into such programs.



> Will never happen though. Residents would rather that money go towards more welfare.



You'd be surprised. Its usually not an either/or scenario.


----------



## longknife

Skylar said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up thinking I had a mother and father - although it was a disfunctional situation. Dad was a mean drunk. Mom had no spine. Grandmother taking over where parents didn't
> 
> BUT - on my 18th birthday, in front of an Army recruiter, I learned they were my parents at all!
> 
> Have no idea who my birth parents are and don't really give a darned.
> 
> One day, I'm going the DNA analysis bit to get some idea what my heritage is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you learned that they were....or weren't your parents?
Click to expand...


That they WERE NOT! Standing in front of an Army recruiter, the woman I thought was my grandmother, handed him a birth certificate indicating I was born to other parents and had never been adopted.


----------



## Skylar

longknife said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up thinking I had a mother and father - although it was a disfunctional situation. Dad was a mean drunk. Mom had no spine. Grandmother taking over where parents didn't
> 
> BUT - on my 18th birthday, in front of an Army recruiter, I learned they were my parents at all!
> 
> Have no idea who my birth parents are and don't really give a darned.
> 
> One day, I'm going the DNA analysis bit to get some idea what my heritage is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you learned that they were....or weren't your parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That they WERE NOT! Standing in front of an Army recruiter, the woman I thought was my grandmother, handed him a birth certificate indicating I was born to other parents and had never been adopted.
Click to expand...


I'm asking because your post over all strongly insinuates that they were not. But you typed 'they were my parents at all'. 

And never adopted? What the hell?! Did they foster you the entire time?


----------



## 80zephyr

Most people that deal with kids from broken homes say that the kids never give up hope that mom and dad will get together again.

So, I would have to say its very important.

Mark


----------



## longknife

Skylar said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up thinking I had a mother and father - although it was a disfunctional situation. Dad was a mean drunk. Mom had no spine. Grandmother taking over where parents didn't
> 
> BUT - on my 18th birthday, in front of an Army recruiter, I learned they were my parents at all!
> 
> Have no idea who my birth parents are and don't really give a darned.
> 
> One day, I'm going the DNA analysis bit to get some idea what my heritage is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you learned that they were....or weren't your parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That they WERE NOT! Standing in front of an Army recruiter, the woman I thought was my grandmother, handed him a birth certificate indicating I was born to other parents and had never been adopted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm asking because your post over all strongly insinuates that they were not. But you typed 'they were my parents at all'.
> 
> And never adopted? What the hell?! Did they foster you the entire time?
Click to expand...


The story is - my "father" was an LA cop who knew a hooker who'd been knocked up by a sailor. She "gave" me to him and his wife who couldn't have kids and they raised me.

And later, after I'd enlisted in the Army under the name on my birth certificate, he had the balls to ask my why I did change my last name to his!!!!!


----------



## longknife

80zephyr said:


> Most people that deal with kids from broken homes say that the kids never give up hope that mom and dad will get together again.
> 
> So, I would have to say its very important.
> 
> Mark



I lived in a church run foster home for four years and can attest that every single one of the kids from divorced or separated parents had no other desire than to see them reunite so they could have a "normal" life.


----------



## bucs90

longknife said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up thinking I had a mother and father - although it was a disfunctional situation. Dad was a mean drunk. Mom had no spine. Grandmother taking over where parents didn't
> 
> BUT - on my 18th birthday, in front of an Army recruiter, I learned they were my parents at all!
> 
> Have no idea who my birth parents are and don't really give a darned.
> 
> One day, I'm going the DNA analysis bit to get some idea what my heritage is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you learned that they were....or weren't your parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That they WERE NOT! Standing in front of an Army recruiter, the woman I thought was my grandmother, handed him a birth certificate indicating I was born to other parents and had never been adopted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm asking because your post over all strongly insinuates that they were not. But you typed 'they were my parents at all'.
> 
> And never adopted? What the hell?! Did they foster you the entire time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story is - my "father" was an LA cop who knew a hooker who'd been knocked up by a sailor. She "gave" me to him and his wife who couldn't have kids and they raised me.
> 
> And later, after I'd enlisted in the Army under the name on my birth certificate, he had the balls to ask my why I did change my last name to his!!!!!
Click to expand...


Sounds like your parents were/are truly unsung heros of this country.


----------



## Silhouette

80zephyr said:


> Most people that deal with kids from broken homes say that the kids never give up hope that mom and dad will get together again.
> 
> So, I would have to say its very important.
> 
> Mark


Well in any gay marriage, the ceremony itself is an announcement to kids of a life-sentence of lost hope..


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a planet for evil, and only the evil like it.  Even your insanity rejects what happens here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry for you.  I've had thousands and thousands of hours of delight watching sunsets, birds, nature, children playing, walking my dog, riding horses, swimming, backpacking, late night chats with friends, productive inventing, potluck dinners, basketball games, skin diving, fishing, 4x4ing, touring Europe and the ancient places.  This world you can extract the positive from or think of it as evil.  And it will become what you think of it.
Click to expand...


You have done all of that- yet you devote your life to trying to bring harm to gay Americans.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly makes this a current event?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the question of removing children from the hope of either a mother or father for life as a matter of contract is a current event.
Click to expand...


In other words, just your bizarre fantasy.


----------



## sealybobo

Silhouette said:


> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.


All the crime we see happening every day in Detroit, is a direct result of children not having 2 parents in their lives.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people that deal with kids from broken homes say that the kids never give up hope that mom and dad will get together again.
> 
> So, I would have to say its very important.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Well in any gay marriage, the ceremony itself is an announcement to kids of a life-sentence of lost hope..
Click to expand...


So denying them that ceremony will magically transform same sex parents into opposite sex parents?

Nope.* Denying marriage to same sex parents only guarantees that their children will never have married parents. *Which hurts their children and helps no child.

No thank you. Your idea is foolish by the standards of your own argument. As it doesn't remedy any 'problem' you've cited. It merely hurts and humiliates children by the hundreds of thousands...in exchange for nothing. All while helping no child.


----------



## sealybobo

Judicial review said:


> Yes very important. My father taught me to fuck the ass and my mother taught me to take it in the ass. We are the fucking Brady bunch family


I remember my mom taught me and my brother about hetero sex and we were grossed out just as bad as you are at the thought of a penis in your mouth or ass.  But we soon got over it.  Maybe soon you'll get over the idea of gay butt sex.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people that deal with kids from broken homes say that the kids never give up hope that mom and dad will get together again.
> 
> So, I would have to say its very important.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Well in any gay marriage, the ceremony itself is an announcement to kids of a life-sentence of lost hope..
Click to expand...


And again no.

For the majority of gay marriages- there are no children involved. 
Of the remaining gay marriages- most already have children- their marrying only ensures that their children have better legal protections and suffer less harm.
Of the remaining minority of gay marriages- again- the marriage only ensures that any children that they do have have better legal protections and suffer less harm.

You ideal of preventing the gay parents of children from marrying- only ensures harm to those children.


----------



## Skylar

sealybobo said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.
> 
> 
> 
> All the crime we see happening every day in Detroit, is a direct result of children not having 2 parents in their lives.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but Sil was a single parent. So she gives those folks a mulligan. Its only the 2 parent gay households where she loses her shit.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Imagine three generations of all gay men.  No mothers, no grandmothers.  The boys and girls caught up in that would have such a great life experience!  Fast forward 100 years.  Think about it..



How exactly are you planning on engineering such a feat?


----------



## Silhouette

80zephyr said:


> Most people that deal with kids from broken homes say that the kids never give up hope that mom and dad will get together again.
> 
> So, I would have to say its very important....Mark





Silhouette said:


> Well in any gay marriage, the ceremony itself is an announcement to kids of a life-sentence of lost hope..





Skylar said:


> So denying them that ceremony will magically transform same sex parents into opposite sex parents?
> 
> Nope.* Denying marriage to same sex parents only guarantees that their children will never have married parents. *Which hurts their children and helps no child.
> 
> No thank you. Your idea is foolish by the standards of your own argument. As it doesn't remedy any 'problem' you've cited. It merely hurts and humiliates children by the hundreds of thousands...in exchange for nothing. All while helping no child.



You don't seem to have problems with denying children of polygamists marriage.  So, your logic falls on its face bro.

Some unfortunate children's situations must not set the rule of law on the best situation for children as a legal-whole: mother/father marriage.  My heart goes out to kids caught up in gay lifestyles, but their struggles cannot be made normal so your unreflective cult can put a bandaid over their deep mental wounds using kids at the adhesive..


----------



## mdk

sealybobo said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.
> 
> 
> 
> All the crime we see happening every day in Detroit, is a direct result of children not having 2 parents in their lives.
Click to expand...


Who gives a shit about those kids? They have the hope of having a mother/father and that is all that matters to Sil.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well my biological mother had four children by four different men, and my biological father had a few children out of wedlock, and I grew up with a Jewish Aunt and Unitarian Uncle that almost divorced many times over and I was reminded that I was the bastard child of my Aunt Half-Sister, so how does this having two parents of opposite sex suppose to work in your delusional world you live in?
> 
> Where were you to stop my biological mother and father from their sins?..Wait, they were heterosexual so who gives a damn, right?...So pardon me but fuck you, your poll, and again fuck you!...If a kid has two loving beings that raise them to know wrong from right and it is Adam and Steve or Butch and Lipstick Mom then I could give a flying fuck because I have known many heterosexual parents that should not have been allowed to breed, and before you write about those that made me, well I told them that to their fucking face, so there you have it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your horrible exceptions cannot be used to set the rule for other children. ...
Click to expand...


Yet you do that all the time. You find horrible exceptions and then claim that is the reason- such as your supposed family friend who supposedly was a mass murderer.

Children deserve good parents- or a good parent. 

Unfortunately we don't require parents to be good parents- nor do we have any good way to even measure whether they are- we can at best measure extremely abusive parents.

I applaud any parent- or parents- who do a good job raising their kids- I applaud even more the parents who do a good job raising the kids abandoned by their own biological parents.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people that deal with kids from broken homes say that the kids never give up hope that mom and dad will get together again.
> 
> So, I would have to say its very important....Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well in any gay marriage, the ceremony itself is an announcement to kids of a life-sentence of lost hope..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So denying them that ceremony will magically transform same sex parents into opposite sex parents?
> 
> Nope.* Denying marriage to same sex parents only guarantees that their children will never have married parents. *Which hurts their children and helps no child.
> 
> No thank you. Your idea is foolish by the standards of your own argument. As it doesn't remedy any 'problem' you've cited. It merely hurts and humiliates children by the hundreds of thousands...in exchange for nothing. All while helping no child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't seem to have problems with denying children of polygamists marriage.  So, your logic falls on its face bro.
Click to expand...


Except that it doesn't. As your proposal still doesn't help a single child.

Every 'problem' you cite exists_ without_ same sex marriage. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't make them opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that thier children never have married parents. Which humiliates these kids, robs them of benefits and family security......all in exchange for nothing.



> Unfortunate children's situations must not set the rule of law on the best situation for children: mother/father marriage.  My heart goes out to kids caught up in gay lifestyles, but their struggles cannot be made normal so your unreflective cult can put a bandaid over their deep mental wounds using kids at the adhesive..



And how does denying marriage for same sex parents help their children?

Or any child?


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine three generations of all gay men.  No mothers, no grandmothers.  The boys and girls caught up in that would have such a great life experience!  Fast forward 100 years.  Think about it..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly are you planning on engineering such a feat?
Click to expand...


The same way she 'cites' the law, the constitution, USSC cases and contract law:

She's just gonna make shit up.


----------



## Syriusly

SeniorChief_Polock said:


> Most Liberal men had TWO fathers and were "dick fed," vs. breast fed... I don't see that in the survey. You're missing out on a lot of posters here who fall into that category...



Ah not a surprise Polock showed up to post about his most recent dick sex fantasies.


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.



Fantastic- so did I. They are still the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. 

I am lucky- very, very few of my contemporaries had parents who stayed together for their entire lives- and who were also good parents.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Unfortunate children's situations must not set the rule of law on the best situation for children as a legal-whole: mother/father marriage. My heart goes out to kids caught up in gay lifestyles, but their struggles cannot be made normal so your unreflective cult can put a bandaid over their deep mental wounds using kids at the adhesive..



So what is your end game here, Sil? The only way to ensure that gays do not raise children is to make doing so illegal and to remove children presently being raised by a gay parent(s). Is this what you support? Yes or no? 

Every time I ask you flee.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep saying "important for boys to have dads and girls to have moms"...but equally important is for the child to learn how to relate to the opposite gender which is something they'll have to know how to do well to be functional and healthy adults..
Click to expand...


I have known many kids raised by single parents- and oddly enough they turn out as 'functional and healthy' adults as everyone else.

Oh wait- you only care when they have two parents of the same gender- not one parent of the same gender.....


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> * Denying marriage to same sex parents only guarantees that their children will never have married parents. *Which hurts their children and helps no child.
> 
> No thank you. Your idea is foolish by the standards of your own argument. As it doesn't remedy any 'problem' you've cited. It merely hurts and humiliates children by the hundreds of thousands...in exchange for nothing. All while helping no child.



You don't seem to have problems with denying children of polygamists marriage.  So, your logic falls on its face bro.

Some unfortunate children's situations must not set the rule of law on the best situation for children as a legal-whole: mother/father marriage.  My heart goes out to kids caught up in gay lifestyles, but their struggles cannot be made normal so your unreflective cult can put a bandaid over their deep mental wounds using kids at the adhesive..





Skylar said:


> Except that it doesn't. As your proposal still doesn't help a single child.


You're right.  My proposal doesn't help a single child, it helps ALL CHILDREN over time who might face the "sorry you have no hope of either a mother or father for life" ceremony that is "gay marriage"..


----------



## Syriusly

bucs90 said:


> I honestly think I was better off with  male/female parents who were divorced than if I had 2 c-fag parents who were together. That would've fucked me up.



If we had a poster child of how having two hetero parents can fuck a child up- bucs90 would be it.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should take a look at the Prince's Trust study from 2010. Its not a 'mother' or 'father' that is the key. But a good same sex role model. This could be a same sex parent, or an aunt/uncle. *Grandparent*, Coach, Family friend, Pastor, Mentor, etc.
> 
> Its why the Prince's Trust runs an elaborate mentoring program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if, like in 100 years from now, the child has nothing but all male "parents" and "grandparents"?
Click to expand...


Oddly enough I have known a friend who was raised by his dad and his grandfather.  This actually does happen. 

And guess what- the kids turn out just fine.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> [


You're right.  My proposal doesn't help a single child, it helps ALL CHILDREN over time who might face the "sorry you have no hope of either a mother or father for life" ceremony that is "gay marriage"..[/QUOTE]

How- how does this handle any single child- or 'all children'?

Please provide examples.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Denying marriage to same sex parents only guarantees that their children will never have married parents. *Which hurts their children and helps no child.
> 
> No thank you. Your idea is foolish by the standards of your own argument. As it doesn't remedy any 'problem' you've cited. It merely hurts and humiliates children by the hundreds of thousands...in exchange for nothing. All while helping no child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to have problems with denying children of polygamists marriage.  ..
Click to expand...


And Silhouette drags out her sorry ass straw man.

Silhouette- you must love polygamous marriages- since those children have even a better 'hope of having a mom and a dad'

Tell us more about your love of polygamy........and incestuous marriage too- since incestuous marriage would also meet your absolute requirements for children.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Denying marriage to same sex parents only guarantees that their children will never have married parents. *Which hurts their children and helps no child.
> 
> No thank you. Your idea is foolish by the standards of your own argument. As it doesn't remedy any 'problem' you've cited. It merely hurts and humiliates children by the hundreds of thousands...in exchange for nothing. All while helping no child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to have problems with denying children of polygamists marriage.  So, your logic falls on its face bro.
Click to expand...


Except that it doesn't. As your proposal still doesn't help a single child.

Every 'problem' you cite exists_ without_ same sex marriage. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't make them opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that thier children never have married parents. Which humiliates these kids, robs them of benefits and family security......all in exchange for nothing.



> Some unfortunate children's situations must not set the rule of law on the best situation for children as a legal-whole: mother/father marriage.  My heart goes out to kids caught up in gay lifestyles, but their struggles cannot be made normal so your unreflective cult can put a bandaid over their deep mental wounds using kids at the adhesive..



And how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

Or any child?




> You're right.  My proposal doesn't help a single child, it helps ALL CHILDREN over time who might face the "sorry you have no hope of either a mother or father for life" ceremony that is "gay marriage"..



Nope. Deny marriage to same sex parents....and they're still same sex parents. All of the 'problems' you cited are still there. Nothing is 'remedied', even by your own standards.

All you do is hurt hundreds of thousands of children, humiliate them, damage their family security, rob them of benefits......in exchange for nothing.

Its pure stupidity by the standards of your own argument. As your proposal doesn't help any child and hurts hundreds of thousands of children.


----------



## Syriusly

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunate children's situations must not set the rule of law on the best situation for children as a legal-whole: mother/father marriage. My heart goes out to kids caught up in gay lifestyles, but their struggles cannot be made normal so your unreflective cult can put a bandaid over their deep mental wounds using kids at the adhesive..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what is your end game here, Sil? The only way to ensure that gays do not raise children is to make doing so illegal and to remove children presently being raised by a gay parent(s). Is this what you support? Yes or no?
> 
> Every time I ask you flee.
Click to expand...


Yep Silhouette refuses to address this.

Here is what Silhouette wants:

She wants the government to require the sterilization of all homosexuals to prevent them from having biological children.
She wants the government to rip children away from their parents if the parents are gay.
And of course to have medical tests of people to ensure that they aren't gay before they aren't gay.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's valid. It's why the black community is so devastated by crime....most boys grow up without a father. But Dems don't like to talk about that, they'd rather blame white cops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now black boys can be legally kept from ever having a father, even the hope of having a father if two "married" lesbians adopt him.. I'm sure this will result in really great things!
Click to expand...


Yep- it will result in a black child abandoned by his biological parents is raised by two loving parents. 

I know you would prefer that that black child stay abandoned rather than have two loving parents who are gay.


----------



## Syriusly

longknife said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up thinking I had a mother and father - although it was a disfunctional situation. Dad was a mean drunk. Mom had no spine. Grandmother taking over where parents didn't
> 
> BUT - on my 18th birthday, in front of an Army recruiter, I learned they were my parents at all!
> 
> Have no idea who my birth parents are and don't really give a darned.
> 
> One day, I'm going the DNA analysis bit to get some idea what my heritage is.
Click to expand...


So in conclusion:
a) Your biological parents abandoned you- in a stunning example of how heterosexual parents are always superior
b) Your adoptive parents- heterosexual- were barely parents and
c) You turned out to be who you are. 

Let me ask you this longknife- if the parents who raised you were sober, supportive, loving and kind- but were two lesbians- would you still be resentful of how you were deprived for life of a father?


----------



## Syriusly

SassyIrishLass said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.
> 
> 
> 
> One poster here talked about being a man who grew up with both mom and dad like almost everyone did....or longed to do anyway...  90-something % above...  He said that not only was having a father important to give himself a sense of male identity, but also a mother to teach him how to relate to other women...namely his wife today.
> 
> I keep saying "important for boys to have dads and girls to have moms"...but equally important is for the child to learn how to relate to the opposite gender which is something they'll have to know how to do well to be functional and healthy adults..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A child needs both a mother and a father, each has it's role in development.
Click to expand...


I happen think that having a mother and a father would be a good thing- presuming that each is a good parent.

But in my experience- and based upon statistics- the vast majority of children missing either a mother or father in their lives are children who are being raised by single parents (or grandparents)- who Silhouette studiously ignores- because those children do not serve her goal of furthering discrimination against homosexuals in America.

I have known good kids raised by single parents and bad kids raised by a loving mother and father.  Neither ensures either failure or good results.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.
> 
> 
> 
> One poster here talked about being a man who grew up with both mom and dad like almost everyone did....or longed to do anyway...  90-something % above...  He said that not only was having a father important to give himself a sense of male identity, but also a mother to teach him how to relate to other women...namely his wife today.
> 
> I keep saying "important for boys to have dads and girls to have moms"...but equally important is for the child to learn how to relate to the opposite gender which is something they'll have to know how to do well to be functional and healthy adults..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A child needs both a mother and a father, each has it's role in development.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I happen think that having a mother and a father would be a good thing- presuming that each is a good parent.
> 
> But in my experience- and based upon statistics- the vast majority of children missing either a mother or father in their lives are children who are being raised by single parents (or grandparents)- who Silhouette studiously ignores- because those children do not serve her goal of furthering discrimination against homosexuals in America.
> 
> I have known good kids raised by single parents and bad kids raised by a loving mother and father.  Neither ensures either failure or good results.
Click to expand...


She was a single parent. So they get a mulligan. Its only the gays that are subject to her 'mother and a father' standard.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people that deal with kids from broken homes say that the kids never give up hope that mom and dad will get together again.
> 
> So, I would have to say its very important.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Well in any gay marriage, the ceremony itself is an announcement to kids of a life-sentence of lost hope..
Click to expand...


Most gay marriages involve no kids at all- is this some announcement sent out like to schools or something?

"Bob and Bill got married last Saturday- so we want to announce to the students of Abraham Lincoln Elementary that you now have a life sentence of lost hope.

You can blame Bob and Bill for that"


----------



## Syriusly

longknife said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people that deal with kids from broken homes say that the kids never give up hope that mom and dad will get together again.
> 
> So, I would have to say its very important.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I lived in a church run foster home for four years and can attest that every single one of the kids from divorced or separated parents had no other desire than to see them reunite so they could have a "normal" life.
Click to expand...


Members of my family had foster kids for years- and yes- no matter how dysfunctional- and abusive- the family was- the kids usually wanted to go back. Some of the stories of abuse the kids suffered from their parents.....yet they still hoped that it could be different with their mom or dad.


----------



## sealybobo

Skylar said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.
> 
> 
> 
> All the crime we see happening every day in Detroit, is a direct result of children not having 2 parents in their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but Sil was a single parent. So she gives those folks a mulligan. Its only the 2 parent gay households where she loses her shit.
Click to expand...

Well Sil needs to listen or read this:

Fathers 'Need To Step Up' For Black Daughters

Regardless of black or white, people raising kids in 1 parent households are raising fucked up kids.

You should have heard one angry black woman call up the show to say she was doing JUST FINE without her daddy and her daughter is doing just fine too if her daddy doesn't want to be involved in her life.

The caller didn't realize that maybe, just maybe, her daughter now has no father because she herself had daddy issues and that's why she picked the dead beat asshole to be the SIRE to her kid.  They all have issues.  You can't deny someone who didn't have the love of two parents is fucked up.

SIL, I'd take two loving gay men parents over one fucked up single baby mama anyday.  You are what's wrong with this country, not gays.


----------



## sealybobo

Silhouette said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people that deal with kids from broken homes say that the kids never give up hope that mom and dad will get together again.
> 
> So, I would have to say its very important....Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well in any gay marriage, the ceremony itself is an announcement to kids of a life-sentence of lost hope..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So denying them that ceremony will magically transform same sex parents into opposite sex parents?
> 
> Nope.* Denying marriage to same sex parents only guarantees that their children will never have married parents. *Which hurts their children and helps no child.
> 
> No thank you. Your idea is foolish by the standards of your own argument. As it doesn't remedy any 'problem' you've cited. It merely hurts and humiliates children by the hundreds of thousands...in exchange for nothing. All while helping no child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't seem to have problems with denying children of polygamists marriage.  So, your logic falls on its face bro.
> 
> Some unfortunate children's situations must not set the rule of law on the best situation for children as a legal-whole: mother/father marriage.  My heart goes out to kids caught up in gay lifestyles, but their struggles cannot be made normal so your unreflective cult can put a bandaid over their deep mental wounds using kids at the adhesive..
Click to expand...

If a kid has two gay parents, most likely they are adopted.  Their biggest issue is why their biological parents abandoned them.  The LEAST of their problems is that the two parents that love them are gay.  Who gives a rats ass?

But only having 1 kid makes for a very sad childhood.  You may not see them crying in their rooms but they are.


----------



## sealybobo

Same when a single person sees a happily married couple.  You can't help but be a little jealous.


----------



## sealybobo

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people that deal with kids from broken homes say that the kids never give up hope that mom and dad will get together again.
> 
> So, I would have to say its very important.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Well in any gay marriage, the ceremony itself is an announcement to kids of a life-sentence of lost hope..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most gay marriages involve no kids at all- is this some announcement sent out like to schools or something?
> 
> "Bob and Bill got married last Saturday- so we want to announce to the students of Abraham Lincoln Elementary that you now have a life sentence of lost hope.
> 
> You can blame Bob and Bill for that"
Click to expand...

My nephew goes to Cranbrook.  It is one of the top private schools in the country.  Mitt Romney went there.  Anyways, there is a gay couple who send their kid to the school.

Then there is my friends kid.  He's a 13 year old morbidly obese Republican with a mouth like a sailor.  If anyone touches him he yells "DON'T TOUCH ME YOU F'ING FAGGOT".  Boy have his Republican parents raised him well, huh?  

Seems to me the gay couple are doing a much better job than the straight couple.  But luckily for fatty his parents have money and he'll probably take over his parents business when he grows up and he can pretend that he succeeded on his own.  

All the parents are wondering when the little fat fuck Republican is going to get expelled.  

Or does SIL think that it should the the gay family who should leave the school?  LOL


----------



## Bob Blaylock

SassyIrishLass said:


> I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.


  To _“live and survive life”_ is usually easy.  Most inner-city feral humans—begotten of an unmarried welfare mother and an unknown sperm donor—achieve that much.

  But for society to prosper, we need more families to be doing much better than that.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Bob Blaylock said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.
> 
> 
> 
> To _“live and survive life”_ is usually easy.  Most inner-city feral humans—begotten of an unmarried welfare mother and an unknown sperm donor—achieve that much.
> 
> But for society to prosper, we need more families to be doing much better than that.
Click to expand...


I see it in all races, the family unit is broken and the result is children suffer, they are not brought up correctly and the results are disastrous


----------



## Judicial review

sealybobo said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes very important. My father taught me to fuck the ass and my mother taught me to take it in the ass. We are the fucking Brady bunch family
> 
> 
> 
> I remember my mom taught me and my brother about hetero sex and we were grossed out just as bad as you are at the thought of a penis in your mouth or ass.  But we soon got over it.  Maybe soon you'll get over the idea of gay butt sex.
Click to expand...


I'll do that when my girlfriend no longer has fears of black penises. Never happen


----------



## Asclepias

Silhouette said:


> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.


Its important but not imperative. There are many ways you can be successful without having both a mother and father in your life.


----------



## Syriusly

sealybobo said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people that deal with kids from broken homes say that the kids never give up hope that mom and dad will get together again.
> 
> So, I would have to say its very important.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Well in any gay marriage, the ceremony itself is an announcement to kids of a life-sentence of lost hope..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most gay marriages involve no kids at all- is this some announcement sent out like to schools or something?
> 
> "Bob and Bill got married last Saturday- so we want to announce to the students of Abraham Lincoln Elementary that you now have a life sentence of lost hope.
> 
> You can blame Bob and Bill for that"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My nephew goes to Cranbrook.  It is one of the top private schools in the country.  Mitt Romney went there.  Anyways, there is a gay couple who send their kid to the school.
> 
> Then there is my friends kid.  He's a 13 year old morbidly obese Republican with a mouth like a sailor.  If anyone touches him he yells "DON'T TOUCH ME YOU F'ING FAGGOT".  Boy have his Republican parents raised him well, huh?
> 
> Seems to me the gay couple are doing a much better job than the straight couple.  But luckily for fatty his parents have money and he'll probably take over his parents business when he grows up and he can pretend that he succeeded on his own.
> 
> All the parents are wondering when the little fat fuck Republican is going to get expelled.
> 
> Or does SIL think that it should the the gay family who should leave the school?  LOL
Click to expand...


The funny thing with generalizations is that we could interchange 'gay' with 'Republican' in your story and it would still be the same.

Doesn't matter whether the parents are 'gay' or 'Republican' or the even odder 'gay Republicans'- what matters is what kind of parents that they are.

But you are right Silhouette would judge the parents on one thing only- whether they are gay or not.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.
> 
> 
> 
> To _“live and survive life”_ is usually easy.  Most inner-city feral humans—begotten of an unmarried welfare mother and an unknown sperm donor—achieve that much..
Click to expand...


What about the rural feral humans- begotten of an unmarried mother and a changing list of married or unmarried fathers- all of whom avoid both the financial and familial responsbilities of parenthood?

What about the simply shitty dads- we have all seen some of them in action- who abandon wife number 1 after 10 years or so to run off with the girl friend and then only sporadically attempts to be a dad, while all the time starving his kids of affection and financial support.

We need better parents- rather than blaming gays or welfare or the inner city- parents who both want to have kids- and want to raise their kids.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> What about the rural feral humans- begotten of an unmarried mother and a changing list of married or unmarried fathers- all of whom avoid both the financial and familial responsbilities of parenthood?
> 
> What about the simply shitty dads- we have all seen some of them in action- who abandon wife number 1 after 10 years or so to run off with the girl friend and then only sporadically attempts to be a dad, while all the time starving his kids of affection and financial support.
> 
> We need better parents- rather than blaming gays .



Is a good parent one who would legally bind a child to a motherless or fatherless existence for life?  I'll wait for your specific answer.  Because the adult children who wrote the amicus briefs linked in my signature said that they experience significant angst having grown up even in model "gay marriages/homes".  Long story short, they are like psychological amputees.  The mother or father "limb" is hacked off for life.

With all your exceptional horror stories Syriusly, you have actually made the case for traditional marriage to be strengthened...not further bastardized by all the terrible conditions of single parenthood or gay parenthood that strips the children of the missing gender in their home..

Thanks for the leg-up on my points!...

31 people voted so far.. over 90% believe that having both a mother and father is important.  90%....90%...  That's impressive.


----------



## namvet

Silhouette said:


> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.



and if their both dead?? forgot that one eh??


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the rural feral humans- begotten of an unmarried mother and a changing list of married or unmarried fathers- all of whom avoid both the financial and familial responsbilities of parenthood?
> 
> What about the simply shitty dads- we have all seen some of them in action- who abandon wife number 1 after 10 years or so to run off with the girl friend and then only sporadically attempts to be a dad, while all the time starving his kids of affection and financial support.
> 
> We need better parents- rather than blaming gays .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is a good parent one who would legally bind a child to a motherless or fatherless existence for life?
Click to expand...


If we're talking about loving, 2 parent home with a positive same sex role model is available? Sure, why not. 

You should really take a look at the Prince's Trust study. As it has found that the positive same sex role model is extremely helpful. And as their Mentoring program demonstrates, such a role model doesn't need to be a parent. 



> I'll wait for your specific answer.  Because the adult children who wrote the amicus briefs linked in my signature said that they experience significant angst having grown up even in model "gay marriages/homes".  Long story short, they are like psychological amputees.  The mother or father "limb" is hacked off for life.



With dozens more were quite happy with their same sex parents. All of whom you ignore because they don't match your narrative.

Remember, all the evidence you ignore.....we can still see it. Pretending none of it exists just demonstrates that your position is founded in willful ignorance

And of course, your insistence that we 'void' all same sex marriages doesn't do a thing to address what you consider the 'problem'*. As same sex parents denied marriage are still same sex parents. *All denying those parents marriage does is guarantee that their children never have married parents.

Which hurts those children and help no child.

See how that works? Your proposal is worse than useless.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep saying "important for boys to have dads and girls to have moms"...but equally important is for the child to learn how to relate to the opposite gender which is something they'll have to know how to do well to be functional and healthy adults..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have known many kids raised by single parents- and oddly enough they turn out as 'functional and healthy' adults as everyone else.
> 
> Oh wait- you only care when they have two parents of the same gender- not one parent of the same gender.....
Click to expand...

Statistically, children of single parents do NOT turn out as "normal" as kids raised by mom and dad.

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep saying "important for boys to have dads and girls to have moms"...but equally important is for the child to learn how to relate to the opposite gender which is something they'll have to know how to do well to be functional and healthy adults..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have known many kids raised by single parents- and oddly enough they turn out as 'functional and healthy' adults as everyone else.
> 
> Oh wait- you only care when they have two parents of the same gender- not one parent of the same gender.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statistically, children of single parents do NOT turn out as "normal" as kids raised by mom and dad.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Statistically, I would agree- and most of that difference is accounted for by income disparity. A two parent household statistically is more income secure than a single parent household.

But what i said still stands- I have known many kids raised by single parents and they have turned out as functional and healthy adults as everyone else.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep saying "important for boys to have dads and girls to have moms"...but equally important is for the child to learn how to relate to the opposite gender which is something they'll have to know how to do well to be functional and healthy adults..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have known many kids raised by single parents- and oddly enough they turn out as 'functional and healthy' adults as everyone else.
> 
> Oh wait- you only care when they have two parents of the same gender- not one parent of the same gender.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statistically, children of single parents do NOT turn out as "normal" as kids raised by mom and dad.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statistically, I would agree- and most of that difference is accounted for by income disparity. A two parent household statistically is more income secure than a single parent household.
> 
> But what i said still stands- I have known many kids raised by single parents and they have turned out as functional and healthy adults as everyone else.
Click to expand...



There are always exceptions. But, the best scenario is the two biological parents. And I doubt income disparity is the cause of the uptick in crime, dropping out of school, and mental health issues, that having a father figure wouldn't fix, even if the income stays the same.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

Silhouette said:


> You like bumping my threads with ad hominems, don't you?  As many times as you've been warned about that, they give you a free rein here.  Almost feels like a form of free speech suppression..


Tissue?


----------



## bodecea

SassyIrishLass said:


> I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.


Are they bi too?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the rural feral humans- begotten of an unmarried mother and a changing list of married or unmarried fathers- all of whom avoid both the financial and familial responsbilities of parenthood?
> 
> What about the simply shitty dads- we have all seen some of them in action- who abandon wife number 1 after 10 years or so to run off with the girl friend and then only sporadically attempts to be a dad, while all the time starving his kids of affection and financial support.
> 
> We need better parents- rather than blaming gays .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is a good parent one who would legally bind a child to a motherless or fatherless existence for life? .
Click to expand...


Sure could be.

A parent who divorces an abusive spouse and vows never to marry again- sure.

To you the only- and I mean ONLY- characteristic of a 'good' parent is being in a heterosexual relationship.

To me, being a good parent is actually parenting well. 

A child with two parents, statistically, has a better chance of having a financially secure childhood- regardless of the gender of the parents- than the child raised by a single parent.

Any child raised by any two parents- is statistically likely to be raised by at least one good parent- than any child raised by only one good parent. 

Would you require single parents to marry in order to protect those children?
Require married couples to stay married in order to have your 'existance for life'?

Oh wait- that only applies to gay parents.........like all of your anti-gay screeds.


----------



## Syriusly

[QUOTE="Silhouette, post: 13584063, member: 44514"
31 people voted so far.. over 90% believe that having both a mother and father is important.  90%....90%...  That's impressive.[/QUOTE]

LOL- Silhouette and her 'polls'- it is almost as comical as the lies she says about the Prince's Study and the Mayo Study....


----------



## bodecea

Silhouette said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people that deal with kids from broken homes say that the kids never give up hope that mom and dad will get together again.
> 
> So, I would have to say its very important.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Well in any gay marriage, the ceremony itself is an announcement to kids of a life-sentence of lost hope..
Click to expand...

I suspect our daughter would punch you in the nose for that.


----------



## sealybobo

Judicial review said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes very important. My father taught me to fuck the ass and my mother taught me to take it in the ass. We are the fucking Brady bunch family
> 
> 
> 
> I remember my mom taught me and my brother about hetero sex and we were grossed out just as bad as you are at the thought of a penis in your mouth or ass.  But we soon got over it.  Maybe soon you'll get over the idea of gay butt sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll do that when my girlfriend no longer has fears of black penises. Never happen
Click to expand...

That's what she tells you.


----------



## sealybobo

Syriusly said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people that deal with kids from broken homes say that the kids never give up hope that mom and dad will get together again.
> 
> So, I would have to say its very important.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Well in any gay marriage, the ceremony itself is an announcement to kids of a life-sentence of lost hope..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most gay marriages involve no kids at all- is this some announcement sent out like to schools or something?
> 
> "Bob and Bill got married last Saturday- so we want to announce to the students of Abraham Lincoln Elementary that you now have a life sentence of lost hope.
> 
> You can blame Bob and Bill for that"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My nephew goes to Cranbrook.  It is one of the top private schools in the country.  Mitt Romney went there.  Anyways, there is a gay couple who send their kid to the school.
> 
> Then there is my friends kid.  He's a 13 year old morbidly obese Republican with a mouth like a sailor.  If anyone touches him he yells "DON'T TOUCH ME YOU F'ING FAGGOT".  Boy have his Republican parents raised him well, huh?
> 
> Seems to me the gay couple are doing a much better job than the straight couple.  But luckily for fatty his parents have money and he'll probably take over his parents business when he grows up and he can pretend that he succeeded on his own.
> 
> All the parents are wondering when the little fat fuck Republican is going to get expelled.
> 
> Or does SIL think that it should the the gay family who should leave the school?  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The funny thing with generalizations is that we could interchange 'gay' with 'Republican' in your story and it would still be the same.
> 
> Doesn't matter whether the parents are 'gay' or 'Republican' or the even odder 'gay Republicans'- what matters is what kind of parents that they are.
> 
> But you are right Silhouette would judge the parents on one thing only- whether they are gay or not.
Click to expand...

You're right. Probably most of the people at that school are Republicans. $20k a year to send your kid there.

I should have said his dad is one of those typical loud mouth rush bill O'Reilly Drudge type Republicans


----------



## Judicial review

sealybobo said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes very important. My father taught me to fuck the ass and my mother taught me to take it in the ass. We are the fucking Brady bunch family
> 
> 
> 
> I remember my mom taught me and my brother about hetero sex and we were grossed out just as bad as you are at the thought of a penis in your mouth or ass.  But we soon got over it.  Maybe soon you'll get over the idea of gay butt sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll do that when my girlfriend no longer has fears of black penises. Never happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what she tells you.
Click to expand...


I had a black guy over for a 3 some and she kicked his ass out and said get that fucking thing out of here. Don't know if she meant that literally or metaphorically. Does it mater?


----------



## sealybobo

That's sick if i


Judicial review said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes very important. My father taught me to fuck the ass and my mother taught me to take it in the ass. We are the fucking Brady bunch family
> 
> 
> 
> I remember my mom taught me and my brother about hetero sex and we were grossed out just as bad as you are at the thought of a penis in your mouth or ass.  But we soon got over it.  Maybe soon you'll get over the idea of gay butt sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll do that when my girlfriend no longer has fears of black penises. Never happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what she tells you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had a black guy over for a 3 some and she kicked his ass out and said get that fucking thing out of here. Don't know if she meant that literally or metaphorically. Does it mater?
Click to expand...

That's sick if true and she's still your woman.


----------



## sealybobo

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep saying "important for boys to have dads and girls to have moms"...but equally important is for the child to learn how to relate to the opposite gender which is something they'll have to know how to do well to be functional and healthy adults..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have known many kids raised by single parents- and oddly enough they turn out as 'functional and healthy' adults as everyone else.
> 
> Oh wait- you only care when they have two parents of the same gender- not one parent of the same gender.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statistically, children of single parents do NOT turn out as "normal" as kids raised by mom and dad.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statistically, I would agree- and most of that difference is accounted for by income disparity. A two parent household statistically is more income secure than a single parent household.
> 
> But what i said still stands- I have known many kids raised by single parents and they have turned out as functional and healthy adults as everyone else.
Click to expand...

They have issues you don't know about. Go to NPR.org or the thread I started about how less than 1/3 of kids are being raised in 2 parent homes and this is especially a problem in the black community.

Yea there's a correlation between single parents and poverty


----------



## Judicial review

sealybobo said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep saying "important for boys to have dads and girls to have moms"...but equally important is for the child to learn how to relate to the opposite gender which is something they'll have to know how to do well to be functional and healthy adults..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have known many kids raised by single parents- and oddly enough they turn out as 'functional and healthy' adults as everyone else.
> 
> Oh wait- you only care when they have two parents of the same gender- not one parent of the same gender.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statistically, children of single parents do NOT turn out as "normal" as kids raised by mom and dad.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statistically, I would agree- and most of that difference is accounted for by income disparity. A two parent household statistically is more income secure than a single parent household.
> 
> But what i said still stands- I have known many kids raised by single parents and they have turned out as functional and healthy adults as everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have issues you don't know about. Go to NPR.org or the thread I started about how less than 1/3 of kids are being raised in 2 parent homes and this is especially a problem in the black community.
> 
> Yea there's a correlation between single parents and poverty
Click to expand...


Wrong. There is a direct problem between poverty and laziness


----------



## Judicial review

Why am I the only one in the United states with common sense?


----------



## sealybobo

Judicial review said:


> Why am I the only one in the United states with common sense?


Because you are a simpleton who thinks simple thoughts.


----------



## Silhouette

namvet said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and if their both dead?? forgot that one eh??
Click to expand...

The "No, but longed for" option covers that.


----------



## Syriusly

Judicial review said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes very important. My father taught me to fuck the ass and my mother taught me to take it in the ass. We are the fucking Brady bunch family
> 
> 
> 
> I remember my mom taught me and my brother about hetero sex and we were grossed out just as bad as you are at the thought of a penis in your mouth or ass.  But we soon got over it.  Maybe soon you'll get over the idea of gay butt sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll do that when my girlfriend no longer has fears of black penises. Never happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what she tells you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had a black guy over for a 3 some and she kicked his ass out and said get that fucking thing out of here. Don't know if she meant that literally or metaphorically. Does it mater?
Click to expand...

'

I don't know which is more unlikely- that Judicial actually was going to have sex with a live female- or that Judicial had actually talked with a 'black guy'


----------



## HenryBHough

I found it impressive that ANY Democrats claimed to have had both parents.


----------



## Syriusly

sealybobo said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep saying "important for boys to have dads and girls to have moms"...but equally important is for the child to learn how to relate to the opposite gender which is something they'll have to know how to do well to be functional and healthy adults..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have known many kids raised by single parents- and oddly enough they turn out as 'functional and healthy' adults as everyone else.
> 
> Oh wait- you only care when they have two parents of the same gender- not one parent of the same gender.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statistically, children of single parents do NOT turn out as "normal" as kids raised by mom and dad.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statistically, I would agree- and most of that difference is accounted for by income disparity. A two parent household statistically is more income secure than a single parent household.
> 
> But what i said still stands- I have known many kids raised by single parents and they have turned out as functional and healthy adults as everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have issues you don't know about. Go to NPR.org or the thread I started about how less than 1/3 of kids are being raised in 2 parent homes and this is especially a problem in the black community.
> 
> Yea there's a correlation between single parents and poverty
Click to expand...


"they have issues you don't know about"- and you do?

I am very aware of some of the issues that statistically can affect the children raised by single parents.  If you want to argue with me regarding single parenting- something which i am generally in agreement with you on- feel free to start a new thread.


----------



## Syriusly

HenryBHough said:


> I found it impressive that ANY Democrats claimed to have had both parents.


Since you are only 'impressed' when you want to troll a thread- not a surprise.


----------



## Syriusly

Judicial review said:


> Why am I the only one in the United states with common sense?


You are also the only one who has sex with you.


----------



## sealybobo

HenryBHough said:


> I found it impressive that ANY Democrats claimed to have had both parents.


My brothers a VP and the president of my company understand the Republicans are nuts.

Lots of normal people who aren't takers who don't vote GOP.


----------



## Silhouette

HenryBHough said:


> I found it impressive that ANY Democrats claimed to have had both parents.


Not only have most of them had both a mom and dad, they consider it important.   Also, a huge share of Hillary moderates have had backgrounds in going to church or coming from that background...and sat in silent terse shock at Kim Davis sitting in jail.. 

You know, eventually someone's going to do this math...


----------



## sealybobo

Silhouette said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> I found it impressive that ANY Democrats claimed to have had both parents.
> 
> 
> 
> Not only have most of them had both a mom and dad, they consider it important.   Also, a huge share of Hillary moderates have had backgrounds in going to church or coming from that background...and sat in silent terse shock at Kim Davis sitting in jail..
> 
> You know, eventually someone's going to do this math...
Click to expand...

Most normal Americans think Kim's nuts


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> I found it impressive that ANY Democrats claimed to have had both parents.
> 
> 
> 
> Not only have most of them had both a mom and dad, they consider it important.   Also, a huge share of Hillary moderates have had backgrounds in going to church or coming from that background...and sat in silent terse shock at Kim Davis sitting in jail..
> 
> You know, eventually someone's going to do this math...
Click to expand...


Math is fun:

Post-ABC poll: Most say Kim Davis should issue marriage licenses to gay couples

Poll: Kentucky voters say Kim Davis should do her job

YouGov poll: 56% support jailing Kim Davis, Republicans evenly split at 42 percent - Hot Air

Spin away one-trick pony.


----------



## Silhouette

HenryBHough said:


> I found it impressive that ANY Democrats claimed to have had both parents.





Silhouette said:


> Not only have most of them had both a mom and dad, they consider it important.   Also, a huge share of Hillary moderates have had backgrounds in going to church or coming from that background...and sat in silent terse shock at Kim Davis sitting in jail..
> 
> You know, eventually someone's going to do this math...





sealybobo said:


> Most normal Americans think Kim's nuts


I guess we'll just put it out there and see if you're right?  We could also just look at the biggest poll results ever on USMB for what 81% of 235 people said here about the Kim Davis issue... Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?


----------



## sealybobo

Silhouette said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> I found it impressive that ANY Democrats claimed to have had both parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only have most of them had both a mom and dad, they consider it important.   Also, a huge share of Hillary moderates have had backgrounds in going to church or coming from that background...and sat in silent terse shock at Kim Davis sitting in jail..
> 
> You know, eventually someone's going to do this math...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most normal Americans think Kim's nuts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess we'll just put it out there and see if you're right?  We could also just look at the biggest poll results ever on USMB for what 81% of 235 people said here about the Kim Davis issue... Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?
Click to expand...

Even I don't think churches should be forced to accommodate gays


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> I found it impressive that ANY Democrats claimed to have had both parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only have most of them had both a mom and dad, they consider it important.   Also, a huge share of Hillary moderates have had backgrounds in going to church or coming from that background...and sat in silent terse shock at Kim Davis sitting in jail..
> 
> You know, eventually someone's going to do this math...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most normal Americans think Kim's nuts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess we'll just put it out there and see if you're right?  We could also just look at the biggest poll results ever on USMB for what 81% of 235 people said here about the Kim Davis issue... Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?
Click to expand...


Another classic. Name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes? You can't b/c it hasn't and nor should it happen. Remember, Kim Davis isn't a church.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Syriusly said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.
> 
> 
> 
> To _“live and survive life”_ is usually easy.  Most inner-city feral humans—begotten of an unmarried welfare mother and an unknown sperm donor—achieve that much..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about the rural feral humans- begotten of an unmarried mother and a changing list of married or unmarried fathers- all of whom avoid both the financial and familial responsbilities of parenthood?
> 
> What about the simply shitty dads- we have all seen some of them in action- who abandon wife number 1 after 10 years or so to run off with the girl friend and then only sporadically attempts to be a dad, while all the time starving his kids of affection and financial support.
> 
> We need better parents- rather than blaming gays or welfare or the inner city- parents who both want to have kids- and want to raise their kids.
Click to expand...


  What we need, as a society, is to uphold those values which lead to stable marriages and families, which encourage men and women to marry, and to remain united for life in their commitment to each other, and their responsibility toward any children that they may produce.

  Welfare-fueled bastardy is destructive to this purpose.  So is homosexuality, and so is every other form of sexual immorality.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

namvet said:


> and if their both dead?? forgot that one eh??



  Bad things happen.  That's no excuse for intentionally causing bad things to happen.

  Among the terrible ills that arise, is abject illiteracy, wherein you wind up with people who are so stupidly illiterate that they don't even know the difference between _“their”_ and _“they're”_.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> I found it impressive that ANY Democrats claimed to have had both parents.
> 
> 
> 
> Not only have most of them had both a mom and dad, they consider it important.   Also, a huge share of Hillary moderates have had backgrounds in going to church or coming from that background...and sat in silent terse shock at Kim Davis sitting in jail..
> 
> You know, eventually someone's going to do this math...
Click to expand...


Save of course that you're making all that up. And you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Remember, you're utterly and compusively obessed with this one issue. You've started 48 threads on the topic, created websites, founded entire message boards were you are the only participant and created 29 more threads to talk to yourself....

......Hillary moderates aren't.


----------



## bucs90

So...it seems same sex parenting is something that in general isn't a good thing...but...we're gonna allow it just...because...we have to to be tolerant.


----------



## Skylar

bucs90 said:


> So...it seems same sex parenting is something that in general isn't a good thing...but...we're gonna allow it just...because...we have to to be tolerant.



As compared to what? Taking children away from their parents?


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> So is homosexuality, and so is every other form of sexual immorality.



Yes- because of course homosexuality- and gay marriage- is the reason why heterosexuals don't do their job of parenting......

What we need is for human beings to stop calling children bastards and to encourage good parenting rather to condemn others for being good parents- because they happen to be gay.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Skylar said:


> Remember, all the evidence you ignore.....we can still see it. Pretending none of it exists just demonstrates that your position is founded in willful ignorance
> 
> And of course, your insistence that we 'void' all same sex marriages doesn't do a thing to address what you consider the 'problem'*. As same sex parents denied marriage are still same sex parents. *All denying those parents marriage does is guarantee that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and help no child.
> 
> See how that works? Your proposal is worse than useless.



  No more so than yours.

  A set of married parents means a father and a mother.  You only hurt a child by giving him a mockery of what he needs, in place of what he really needs.

_
Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
_​


----------



## Syriusly

bucs90 said:


> So...it seems same sex parenting is something that in general isn't a good thing...but...we're gonna allow it just...because...we have to to be tolerant.



No it seems that in general, you are an asshole, and that asshole like you want to discriminate against Americans who happen to be gay- and their children.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

bodecea said:


> I suspect our daughter would punch you in the nose for that.



  So, you raised a daughter who would respond to such a disagreement by resorting to gratuitous violence, did you?

  What does that say about your parenting?

  That's liberal “tolerance” for you.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, all the evidence you ignore.....we can still see it. Pretending none of it exists just demonstrates that your position is founded in willful ignorance
> 
> And of course, your insistence that we 'void' all same sex marriages doesn't do a thing to address what you consider the 'problem'*. As same sex parents denied marriage are still same sex parents. *All denying those parents marriage does is guarantee that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and help no child.
> 
> See how that works? Your proposal is worse than useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more so than yours.
> 
> A set of married parents means a father and a mother.
Click to expand...


A set of married parents can mean a father and a mother, or a mother and a mother, or a father and a father.
A set of unmarried parents the same.
A single parent can be either a mother or a father.

In general, children do better with two parents. 

Conservatives prefer to attack homosexuals, rather than work to help the vast majority of children who are being raised by a single parent because their biological parents have divorced and one parent is not bothering to parent.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect our daughter would punch you in the nose for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you raised a daughter who would respond to such a disagreement by resorting to gratuitous violence, did you?
> 
> What does that say about your parenting?
> 
> That's liberal “tolerance” for you.
Click to expand...


My daughter is such a tolerant liberal that if you walked up and called her a bitch and a slut, she would punch you in the mouth.

And me, being the tolerant liberal that I am, would only object that it was my role as her father to punch you in the mouth.

But I suppose as a good Conservative, you would teach your daughter to accept being called a slut or a bitch by men.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, all the evidence you ignore.....we can still see it. Pretending none of it exists just demonstrates that your position is founded in willful ignorance
> 
> And of course, your insistence that we 'void' all same sex marriages doesn't do a thing to address what you consider the 'problem'*. As same sex parents denied marriage are still same sex parents. *All denying those parents marriage does is guarantee that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and help no child.
> 
> See how that works? Your proposal is worse than useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more so than yours.
Click to expand...


On the contrary, the courts have gone into elaborate detail as to all the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage. And all the benefits to children when their parents are allowed to marry. 

The benefits to those children make my proposal far better than 'useless'. Where as Sil can't even explain how denying marriage same sex parents helps their children. Or any child.



> A set of married parents means a father and a mother.  You only hurt a child by giving him a mockery of what he needs, in place of what he really needs.



Here are some of the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage:



			
				Windsor v. US said:
			
		

> And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....
> 
> ....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.



Now, with some of the serious harms listed, tell us....*how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? *

Sil has never been able to give us any credible answer. And instead insists that they should be harmed. Perhaps you can do better.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> and if their both dead?? forgot that one eh??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad things happen.  That's no excuse for intentionally causing bad things to happen.
> 
> Among the terrible ills that arise, is abject illiteracy, wherein you wind up with people who are so stupidly illiterate that they don't even know the difference between _“their”_ and _“they're”_.
Click to expand...


Lordy, lordy- here comes the USMB Grammar Police......


----------



## Bob Blaylock

mdk said:


> Another classic. Name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes? You can't b/c it hasn't and nor should it happen. Remember, Kim Davis isn't a church.



  If present direction continues, then it will happen.

  The line was crossed when bakers, photographers, and similar businesses were force by law to cater to disgusting homosexual mockeries of weddings or else be punished for refusing to do so.  That is a line that never should have even been approached, much less crossed.  It's only a very small step from there to doing the same thing to churches and to clergy.  Yes, that blatantly violates the First Amendment, but that line has already been crossed.  If the First Amendment was going to be left standing, it would have been left standing when it was private businesses being so forced.


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, all the evidence you ignore.....we can still see it. Pretending none of it exists just demonstrates that your position is founded in willful ignorance
> 
> And of course, your insistence that we 'void' all same sex marriages doesn't do a thing to address what you consider the 'problem'*. As same sex parents denied marriage are still same sex parents. *All denying those parents marriage does is guarantee that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and help no child.
> 
> See how that works? Your proposal is worse than useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more so than yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the courts have gone into elaborate detail as to all the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage. And all the benefits to children when their parents are allowed to marry.
> 
> The benefits to those children make my proposal far better than 'useless'. Where as Sil can't even explain how denying marriage same sex parents helps their children. Or any child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A set of married parents means a father and a mother.  You only hurt a child by giving him a mockery of what he needs, in place of what he really needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are some of the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windsor v. US said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....
> 
> ....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, with some of the serious harms listed, tell us....*how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? *
> 
> Sil has never been able to give us any credible answer. And instead insists that they should be harmed. Perhaps you can do better.
Click to expand...


I am still waiting also.

I know my marriage hasn't been harmed because gay couples can get married.
I know my daughter is not harmed because children of gay couples can now have married parents.

Who are these fictional children who are harmed because Bob can marry Bill?


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another classic. Name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes? You can't b/c it hasn't and nor should it happen. Remember, Kim Davis isn't a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If present direction continues, then it will happen.
> 
> The line was crossed when bakers, photographers, and similar businesses were force by law to cater to disgusting homosexual mockeries of weddingsd.
Click to expand...


The line was crossed when Christians were told that they didn't get to ignore the law because they suddenly discovered they were Christians when they were asked to bake a cake for a gay couple. 

Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another classic. Name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes? You can't b/c it hasn't and nor should it happen. Remember, Kim Davis isn't a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If present direction continues, then it will happen.
Click to expand...


Unless it doesn't. You could man a battleship with the failed slippery slope fallacies the opponents of same sex marriage have insisted 'will happen'.

And never did.



> The line was crossed when bakers, photographers, and similar businesses were force by law to cater to disgusting homosexual mockeries of weddings or else be punished for refusing to do so.



You don't seem familiar with the concept of Public Accomidation laws. Or that churches aren't subject to them.

Why not cite entertainment law or international finance law for as much relevance as your examples have to what we're discussion.



> That is a line that never should have even been approached, much less crossed.  It's only a very small step from there to doing the same thing to churches and to clergy.  Yes, that blatantly violates the First Amendment, but that line has already been crossed.  If the First Amendment was going to be left standing, it would have been left standing when it was private businesses being so forced.



Its actually quite a large step. As none of the laws you've alluded to apply to churches. Nor ever have.

So other than the utter irrelevance of the entire body of law you've cited with churches.......what other pseudo-legal nonsense would you like to offer us?


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another classic. Name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes? You can't b/c it hasn't and nor should it happen. Remember, Kim Davis isn't a church.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a line that never should have even been approached, much less crossed.  It's only a very small step from there to doing the same thing to churches and to clergy.  .
Click to expand...


Business's were forced to sell to inter-racial couples- yet despite the deeply held religious beliefs of some people that inter-racial marriages were sinful- they were forced to do so.

Yet not a single church was ever forced to marry an inter-racial couple. 

Despite the ignorance of the far right- a church is not a business- a business is not a church.

Public Accommodation laws apply to business's- not to church's. 

And that has been the case since 1964.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Syriusly said:


> A set of married parents can mean a father and a mother, or a mother and a mother, or a father and a father.



  Only to the same sort of distorted mind that believes that Bruce Jenner is a woman.[/QUOTE]

  It takes a man and a woman, a father and a mother, to create a child.

  That is also what it takes to comprise a functional set of parents to that child.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Syriusly said:


> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.



  The Constitution is the highest law, in this nation, and the First Amendment is part of it.  You cannot advocate such blatant disregard for it, and still credibly speak of any rule of law.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> It takes a man and a woman, a father and a mother, to create a child.
> 
> That is also what it takes to comprise a functional set of parents to that child.



Um, Bob....the capacity to conceive a child isn't what makes good parents. Loving, caring for, providing for and nurturing your child is what makes good parents. All of which a same sex couple can do and an opposite sex couple can do.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the highest law, in this nation, and the First Amendment is part of it.  You cannot advocate such blatant disregard for it, and still credibly speak of any rule of law.
Click to expand...


The 1st amendment doesn't mean that Christians or any religion can ignore every law. It never has. You're describing Christian Sharia, where any Christian can ignore any law they wish. 

That's not our system or law.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, all the evidence you ignore.....we can still see it. Pretending none of it exists just demonstrates that your position is founded in willful ignorance
> 
> And of course, your insistence that we 'void' all same sex marriages doesn't do a thing to address what you consider the 'problem'*. As same sex parents denied marriage are still same sex parents. *All denying those parents marriage does is guarantee that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and help no child.
> 
> See how that works? Your proposal is worse than useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more so than yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the courts have gone into elaborate detail as to all the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage. And all the benefits to children when their parents are allowed to marry.
> 
> The benefits to those children make my proposal far better than 'useless'. Where as Sil can't even explain how denying marriage same sex parents helps their children. Or any child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A set of married parents means a father and a mother.  You only hurt a child by giving him a mockery of what he needs, in place of what he really needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are some of the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windsor v. US said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....
> 
> ....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, with some of the serious harms listed, tell us....*how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? *
> 
> Sil has never been able to give us any credible answer. And instead insists that they should be harmed. Perhaps you can do better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am still waiting also.
> 
> I know my marriage hasn't been harmed because gay couples can get married.
> I know my daughter is not harmed because children of gay couples can now have married parents.
> 
> Who are these fictional children who are harmed because Bob can marry Bill?
Click to expand...


Bob appears to have run from the question like it was on fire. Sil has never done any better.

The reason is simple: *denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children.* As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.

Which hurts those children and helps none.


----------



## Asclepias

HenryBHough said:


> I found it impressive that ANY Democrats claimed to have had both parents.


I find it impressive you can spell impressive.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Skylar said:


> The 1st amendment doesn't mean that Christians or any religion can ignore every law. It never has. You're describing Christian Sharia, where any Christian can ignore any law they wish.
> 
> That's not our system or law.



  It certainly does mean, however, that any lesser law that violates the First Amendment is invalid.

  And what you advocate blatantly violates the First Amendment.

  You cannot even get to your position without breaking the highest law, without trashing the First Amendment; and by doing that, you destroy any credibility in speaking of the rule of law,or of any obligation to obey the law.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Skylar said:


> The reason is simple: *denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children.* As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and helps none.



  There is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex.  Marriage, by definition, always has been, and will always be, between a man and a woman.

  You do not help children by offering them a fraudulent mockery, and insisting that it is the same as the genuine thing that is being mocked.


----------



## Asclepias

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason is simple: *denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children.* As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and helps none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex.  Marriage, by definition, always has been, and will always be, between a man and a woman.
> 
> You do not help children by offering them a fraudulent mockery, and insisting that it is the same as the genuine thing that is being mocked.
Click to expand...

Definitions change. Matter of fact gay used to mean happy.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason is simple: *denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children.* As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and helps none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex.
Click to expand...


Except that there is. 



> Marriage, by definition, always has been, and will always be, between a man and a woman.



Marriage is, by definition, whatever we agree it is. As we invented it. And marriage by definition includes same sex couples.

You can tell...by how same sex marriage is being performed in 50 of 50 States. 



> You do not help children by offering them a fraudulent mockery, and insisting that it is the same as the genuine thing that is being mocked.



The harms in denying same sex marriage are legion:



			
				Windsor v US said:
			
		

> And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....
> 
> ....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.



How does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1st amendment doesn't mean that Christians or any religion can ignore every law. It never has. You're describing Christian Sharia, where any Christian can ignore any law they wish.
> 
> That's not our system or law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does mean, however, that any lesser law that violates the First Amendment is invalid.
Click to expand...


Violate the 1st amendment....according to who? So far you've cited yourself as a legal authority on the matter. And you're nobody. 



> And what you advocate blatantly violates the First Amendment.



Blatantly violates the First Amendment....according to who? There's you citing nobody. What else have you got? Again, your personal interpretation would allow any Christian to ignore any law they wish. 

That's never been our system of law. Christians are subject to the law too, Bob.


----------



## Skylar

Asclepias said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason is simple: *denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children.* As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and helps none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex.  Marriage, by definition, always has been, and will always be, between a man and a woman.
> 
> You do not help children by offering them a fraudulent mockery, and insisting that it is the same as the genuine thing that is being mocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Definitions change. Matter of fact gay used to mean happy.
Click to expand...


And faggots were a bundle of wood. So much for eternal definitions.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> A set of married parents can mean a father and a mother, or a mother and a mother, or a father and a father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> n.
Click to expand...


  That is also what it takes to comprise a functional set of parents to that child.[/QUOTE]

I have seen far to many married couples who were technically and legally the 'mother and father' but were functionally lousy parents to accept that is the essential criteria.

I am all for two parents of the opposite gender- if they are willing to be actual parents. But being a parent myself- I am thrilled to see a child being raised well by two parents of the opposite gender or being raised by well by a single parent.

And unlike you- I would never call a child a bastard.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the highest law, in this nation, and the First Amendment is part of it.  You cannot advocate such blatant disregard for it, and still credibly speak of any rule of law.
Click to expand...


Christians have to follow the law just like everyone else. That is the essence of the First Amendment- Christians have to follow the same rules as Jews and Muslims and Atheists.

We all learned that in 1964.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> A set of married parents can mean a father and a mother, or a mother and a mother, or a father and a father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only to the same sort of distorted mind that believes that Bruce Jenner is a woman.
Click to expand...


  It takes a man and a woman, a father and a mother, to create a child..[/QUOTE]

Yeah any drunk man and woman can create a child.

Parenting takes actual work.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason is simple: *denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children.* As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and helps none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex.  Marriage, by definition, always has been, and will always be, between a man and a woman..
Click to expand...


Both legally-- and linguistically you are wrong.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason is simple: *denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children.* As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and helps none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not help children by offering them a fraudulent mockery, and insisting that it is the same as the genuine thing that is being mocked.
Click to expand...


Who is offering marriage to children Bob? 

The legal marriage of two persons of the same gender harms no one. 

But if those two people have children- they are better off having married parents instead of unmarried parents. 

If you do not believe that- explain why those children are better off if their parents are not married.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

bodecea said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.
> 
> 
> 
> Are they bi too?
Click to expand...


Nah they don't have the disease you have. Now go shave your back ya nasty lying dyke sock puppet.

You keep ankle snapping and keep getting your bell rang, eh bitch? You learn slow


----------



## mdk

Bob Blaylock said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another classic. Name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes? You can't b/c it hasn't and nor should it happen. Remember, Kim Davis isn't a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If present direction continues, then it will happen.
> 
> The line was crossed when bakers, photographers, and similar businesses were force by law to cater to disgusting homosexual mockeries of weddings or else be punished for refusing to do so.  That is a line that never should have even been approached, much less crossed.  It's only a very small step from there to doing the same thing to churches and to clergy.  Yes, that blatantly violates the First Amendment, but that line has already been crossed.  If the First Amendment was going to be left standing, it would have been left standing when it was private businesses being so forced.
Click to expand...


No, it isn't a really small step. Not a single church has been forced to marry anyone against their wishes. Not one. This is nothing more than overly-dramatic poppycock. Besides, churches and private businesses are not subject to state and federal public accommodation laws.


----------



## Skylar

mdk said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another classic. Name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes? You can't b/c it hasn't and nor should it happen. Remember, Kim Davis isn't a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If present direction continues, then it will happen.
> 
> The line was crossed when bakers, photographers, and similar businesses were force by law to cater to disgusting homosexual mockeries of weddings or else be punished for refusing to do so.  That is a line that never should have even been approached, much less crossed.  It's only a very small step from there to doing the same thing to churches and to clergy.  Yes, that blatantly violates the First Amendment, but that line has already been crossed.  If the First Amendment was going to be left standing, it would have been left standing when it was private businesses being so forced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it isn't a really small step. Not a single church has been forced to marry anyone against their wishes. Not one. This is nothing more than overly-dramatic poppycock. Churches and private businesses are not subject to state and federal public accommodation laws. If you wish to discuss this topic you should at least have the slightest bit of knowledge on the subject.
Click to expand...


I mean, there's only nearly a half century of direct, perfect contradiction of all of Bob's assumptions.


----------



## mdk

Skylar said:


> I mean, there's only nearly a half century of direct, perfect contradiction of all of Bob's assumptions.



Having to serve Jewish people means that Catholics priests are bound to marry Jews in Cathedrals. Did you not get the tear-stained memo in crayon? 

lol


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Silhouette said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the best parents anyone could ever hope to have. They taught and prepared me how to live and survive life.
> 
> 
> 
> One poster here talked about being a man who grew up with both mom and dad like almost everyone did....or longed to do anyway...  90-something % above...  He said that not only was having a father important to give himself a sense of male identity, but also a mother to teach him how to relate to other women...namely his wife today.
> 
> I keep saying "important for boys to have dads and girls to have moms"...but equally important is for the child to learn how to relate to the opposite gender which is something they'll have to know how to do well to be functional and healthy adults..
Click to expand...


  An important point, that is almost being missed, here…

  It's not just that I had a father, and that I also had a mother.

  Like the vast majority of adults, a healthy, functional marriage is crucial to my happiness, and to my well-being.

  My wife came from a rather adverse background, and my marriage has, at times, not been an easy one.  I doubt it would have survived as long as it has (we're coming up on twenty-one years) if I hadn't had the advantage of learning from the example that my parents provided.

  It's not just that my father showed me how to be a man, and how to be a husband.

  It's not just that my mother showed me what to expect of a woman, and of a wife.

  More than that, it's how my parents, in their own marriage, showed me how to be in a healthy marriage, in spite of the various obstacles that they faced, and the different obstacles that my wife and I face.

  My wife did not grow up with this advantage, and I hate to think how things might have turned out for her had she married a man who also did not have this advantage.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Skylar said:


> Nope.* Denying marriage to same sex parents only guarantees that their children will never have married parents. *Which hurts their children and helps no child.
> 
> No thank you. Your idea is foolish by the standards of your own argument. As it doesn't remedy any 'problem' you've cited. It merely hurts and humiliates children by the hundreds of thousands...in exchange for nothing. All while helping no child.



  No, that's what your side does, by advocating that children shoulder put into a fraudulent, dysfunctional mockery of a family instead of a genuine family, and by insisting that the mockery is just as valid and just as good.


----------



## Skull Pilot

My Dad was killed for nothing in the skies over Vietnam and my mother went batshit crazy when I was 8 so I might as well not have had one


----------



## charwin95

My parents is the best we can asked. Married for 49 years and live happily ever after. There are only 3 of us......... my 2 older sisters and me. So far no divorce in the family.


----------



## Silhouette

Skull Pilot said:


> My Dad was killed for nothing in the skies over Vietnam and my mother went batshit crazy when I was 8 so I might as well not have had one


And you were the better or worse for not having either a mom or dad, do you think?


----------



## Asclepias

Silhouette said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> My Dad was killed for nothing in the skies over Vietnam and my mother went batshit crazy when I was 8 so I might as well not have had one
> 
> 
> 
> And you were the better or worse for not having either a mom or dad, do you think?
Click to expand...

How could someone possibly know that unless they were able to travel back in time then forward in time following two different time lines?


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> My Dad was killed for nothing in the skies over Vietnam and my mother went batshit crazy when I was 8 so I might as well not have had one
> 
> 
> 
> And you were the better or worse for not having either a mom or dad, do you think?
Click to expand...




Asclepias said:


> How could someone possibly know that unless they were able to travel back in time then forward in time following two different time lines?


By watching the joys and lessons & advantages of their peers who had a mom and dad, unlike them.

I hope Skull Pilot that you find healing.  It's tough without the proper foundation.  But even with those of us who grew up minus a mom or dad, we can fill those gaps with time and patience with our process.


----------



## Asclepias

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> My Dad was killed for nothing in the skies over Vietnam and my mother went batshit crazy when I was 8 so I might as well not have had one
> 
> 
> 
> And you were the better or worse for not having either a mom or dad, do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could someone possibly know that unless they were able to travel back in time then forward in time following two different time lines?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By watching the joys and lessons & advantages of their peers who had a mom and dad, unlike them.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the peers didnt have the same mom and dad he did. Thats like saying I can watch an NBA game and know what my life would have been like if I had only played basketball in grade school.


----------



## Silhouette

Asclepias said:


> I'm pretty sure the peers didnt have the same mom and dad he did. Thats like saying I can watch an NBA game and know what my life would have been like if I had only played basketball in grade school.


Well we are both speculating aren't we?  Because Skull himself needs to answer the questions, not you.  Meanwhile, take a look at the poll.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Skull Pilot said:


> My Dad was killed for nothing in the skies over Vietnam and my mother went batshit crazy when I was 8 so I might as well not have had one


Sometimes no parent would have been better than one or both.  Something Sil doesn't get.


----------



## Asclepias

Silhouette said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure the peers didnt have the same mom and dad he did. Thats like saying I can watch an NBA game and know what my life would have been like if I had only played basketball in grade school.
> 
> 
> 
> Well we are both speculating aren't we?  Because Skull himself needs to answer the questions, not you.  Meanwhile, take a look at the poll.
Click to expand...

Thats the point. Skull would be speculating as well unless he had a top notch time machine capable of traveling a different time line where the parents were alive.  What will looking at the poll do?


----------



## Silhouette

PaintMyHouse said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> My Dad was killed for nothing in the skies over Vietnam and my mother went batshit crazy when I was 8 so I might as well not have had one
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes no parent would have been better than one or both.  Something Sil doesn't get.
Click to expand...

Well, society and child psychologists agree that children do best with both a mother and father.  The poll reflects that.  So it's not just me saying it.  You are facing a 90%+ majority paint..


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> My Dad was killed for nothing in the skies over Vietnam and my mother went batshit crazy when I was 8 so I might as well not have had one
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes no parent would have been better than one or both.  Something Sil doesn't get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, society and child psychologists agree that children do best with both a mother and father.  The poll reflects that.  So it's not just me saying it.  You are facing a 90%+ majority paint..
Click to expand...

Help for you, we haven't had openly gay parents for that long and the kids live in a society still bigoted against gays, like you, so it is going to take some time and there will be some differences.  Common sense say being raised by two gay parents is going to be an issue in certain cases, just like being raised by a single parent or divorced parents. * What you don't get, and can't understand, is we are not a society that does the best thing for children.*  If we were, most would not be allowed to have them, and that includes you who are very psychologically unbalanced.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.* Denying marriage to same sex parents only guarantees that their children will never have married parents. *Which hurts their children and helps no child.
> 
> No thank you. Your idea is foolish by the standards of your own argument. As it doesn't remedy any 'problem' you've cited. It merely hurts and humiliates children by the hundreds of thousands...in exchange for nothing. All while helping no child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's what your side does, by advocating that children shoulder put into a fraudulent, dysfunctional mockery of a family instead of a genuine family, and by insisting that the mockery is just as valid and just as good.
Click to expand...


Again, same sex parents don't magically become opposite sex parents if you deny them marriage. 

I'll ask you, for the third time......how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?


----------



## Silhouette

PaintMyHouse said:


> Help for you, we haven't had openly gay parents for that long and the kids live in a society still bigoted against gays, like you, so it is going to take some time and there will be some differences.  Common sense say being raised by two gay parents is going to be an issue in certain cases, just like being raised by a single parent or divorced parents. * What you don't get, and can't understand, is we are not a society that does the best thing for children.*  If we were, most would not be allowed to have them, and that includes you who are very psychologically unbalanced.


That's nice.  Glad YOU feel that way.  But the poll says that 90%+ people disagree with you.  And, I'm not the one sporting a psycho-killer avatar at USMB.  Should we take a poll based on our avatars which one of our platforms sports outward signs of insanity?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> My Dad was killed for nothing in the skies over Vietnam and my mother went batshit crazy when I was 8 so I might as well not have had one
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes no parent would have been better than one or both.  Something Sil doesn't get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, society and child psychologists agree that children do best with both a mother and father.  The poll reflects that.  So it's not just me saying it.  You are facing a 90%+ majority paint..
Click to expand...


You still face the same problem you always have, Sil: you can't explain how having unmarried parents benefits the children of same sex parents. 

And that's where your argument always, always breaks.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> *Again, same sex parents don't magically become opposite sex parents* if you deny them marriage.



That's interesting...where do you suppose the babies they're "parenting" came from?  Were they born out another man's anus (artificial vagina)?  Or were they sired by a lesbian's strapon?  Poor you.    Biology alone tells us your platfom is patently insane..


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Help for you, we haven't had openly gay parents for that long and the kids live in a society still bigoted against gays, like you, so it is going to take some time and there will be some differences.  Common sense say being raised by two gay parents is going to be an issue in certain cases, just like being raised by a single parent or divorced parents. * What you don't get, and can't understand, is we are not a society that does the best thing for children.*  If we were, most would not be allowed to have them, and that includes you who are very psychologically unbalanced.
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice.  Glad YOU feel that way.  But the poll says that 90%+ people disagree with you.  And, I'm not the one sporting a psycho-killer avatar at USMB.  Should we take a poll based on our avatars which one of our platforms sports outward signs of insanity?
Click to expand...


48 threads on the same topic, most with dozens if not hundreds of pages, your own website dedicated to the topic, and you creating your own message board with another 29 threads where you are the only participant in every conversation with yourself.

That's not well.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Silhouette said:


> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.





Why wasn't there an option for "yes, I had contact with both parents, Mother and Father, but one was an abusive asshole?"


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Again, same sex parents don't magically become opposite sex parents* if you deny them marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting...where do you suppose the babies they're "parenting" came from?  Were they born out another man's anus (artificial vagina)?  Or were they sired by a lesbian's strapon?  Poor you.    Biology alone tells us your platfom is patently insane..
Click to expand...


Probably from the same place they come from when parents adopt. Or when one partner is infertile.

So....how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? If this is for the benefit of children, explain the benefit. Because the court has gone into elaborate detail about how your proposal hurts children:



			
				Windsor v. US said:
			
		

> And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives...
> 
> ....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families
> by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses.  And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.



So.....why would you want to hurt children by the tens of thousands in this fashion?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Carla_Danger said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why wasn't there an option for "yes, I had contact with both parents, Mother and Father, but one was an abusive asshole?"
Click to expand...

Because Sil doesn't believe in the real world, where you parents might just be your very worst enemies...


----------



## aaronleland

My father ran out on us before I was born, and I grew up with an abusive step-father, and I grew up perfectly normal. Yeah, I've been known to suck dick, but that's neither here nor there.


----------



## Carla_Danger

What if your choices are this couple...







vs this mother?


----------



## Asclepias

Carla_Danger said:


> What if your choices are this couple...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vs this mother?


There you go introducing unknown variables. Everyone knows this is the perfect setup.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Silhouette said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> My Dad was killed for nothing in the skies over Vietnam and my mother went batshit crazy when I was 8 so I might as well not have had one
> 
> 
> 
> And you were the better or worse for not having either a mom or dad, do you think?
Click to expand...

Impossible to say

I have nothing for a comparison so I am what i am I don't dwell on it


----------



## Skull Pilot

PaintMyHouse said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> My Dad was killed for nothing in the skies over Vietnam and my mother went batshit crazy when I was 8 so I might as well not have had one
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes no parent would have been better than one or both.  Something Sil doesn't get.
Click to expand...

I might finally agree with you on something


----------



## Silhouette

Carla_Danger said:


> What if your choices are this couple...



Which one of those two gay men are going to sit the little baby girl (was she born out of one of their anuses?) down when she's a preteen and discuss with her all the nuances of menstruation?  The only way a mother could/would advise her daughter?..childbirth?  How to wade through hetero men for "the right one"?

Which one will be the actual mother to the child?  Neither? So if those two are "married", they have stripped that little girl of a mother for life as a matter of newly binding contract.  Well done, Obergefell..  Except that New York vs Ferber says that no adults can harm a child physically or psychologically in the course of their enjoying a civil right, real or invented last Summer and tacked onto the Constitution by 5 Justices legislating from the Bench...


----------



## Skull Pilot

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> My Dad was killed for nothing in the skies over Vietnam and my mother went batshit crazy when I was 8 so I might as well not have had one
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes no parent would have been better than one or both.  Something Sil doesn't get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, society and child psychologists agree that children do best with both a mother and father.  The poll reflects that.  So it's not just me saying it.  You are facing a 90%+ majority paint..
Click to expand...


IDK I certainly did better than I would have with a couple of drunks or addicts as parents
My mother was at least able to keep the house (it was paid for with my Dad's insurance money) and she kept the lights on more often than not 

Other than that I was pretty much on my own from 8 until I left for good at 17


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if your choices are this couple...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those two gay men are going to sit the little baby girl (was she born out of one of their anuses?) down when she's a preteen and discuss with her all the nuances of menstruation?  The only way a mother could/would advise her daughter?..childbirth?  How to wade through hetero men for "the right one"?
Click to expand...


Presumably an aunt, grandmomther, family friend, coach, pastor, mentor, etc. Again, you need to read the Prince's Trust study. Good same sex rolemodels, exactly the kind of folks that can help with those kind of questions.....don't have to be parents. The Prince's Trust runs an extensive mentoring program for exactly that reason.

And again, how would denying her married parents help with *anything* you've just complained about? As the harm you would do to that child would be legion. What would the upside of refusing to allow her parents to marry be?

You've never been able to explain that. Every time I ask.....you run. 

With same sex marriage legal in 50 of 50 States, how's that working out for you?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> ...when she's a preteen and discuss with her all the nuances of menstruation?


Hmmm, I can't wait to here what those are exactly?  Who knew it was a secret thing men could not understand?  As I remember, my mom had a pretty good understanding of how a penis worked.

Period Starter Kit

Tampax Pearl Lite, Your Perfect First Tampon


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> ...when she's a preteen and discuss with her all the nuances of menstruation?





PaintMyHouse said:


> Hmmm, I can't wait to here what those are exactly?  Who knew it was a secret thing men could not understand?  As I remember, my mom had a pretty good understanding of how a penis worked.
> 
> Period Starter Kit
> 
> Tampax Pearl Lite, Your Perfect First Tampon


Nuances...particulars known to each matriarchal line.  Women of different families have completely different cyclical flows and issues.  Just like my farm females all have different cycles peculiar to their unique genetic lines.  You didn't know that.  You have just made my point.


----------



## Asclepias

Silhouette said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if your choices are this couple...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those two gay men are going to sit the little baby girl (was she born out of one of their anuses?) down when she's a preteen and discuss with her all the nuances of menstruation?  The only way a mother could/would advise her daughter?..childbirth?  How to wade through hetero men for "the right one"?
> 
> Which one will be the actual mother to the child?  Neither? So if those two are "married", they have stripped that little girl of a mother for life as a matter of newly binding contract.  Well done, Obergefell..  Except that New York vs Ferber says that no adults can harm a child physically or psychologically in the course of their enjoying a civil right, real or invented last Summer and tacked onto the Constitution by 5 Justices legislating from the Bench...
Click to expand...

Probably the one that has the most knowledge on the subject. Youre acting like male gynecologists dont exist.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, all the evidence you ignore.....we can still see it. Pretending none of it exists just demonstrates that your position is founded in willful ignorance
> 
> And of course, your insistence that we 'void' all same sex marriages doesn't do a thing to address what you consider the 'problem'*. As same sex parents denied marriage are still same sex parents. *All denying those parents marriage does is guarantee that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and help no child.
> 
> See how that works? Your proposal is worse than useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more so than yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the courts have gone into elaborate detail as to all the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage. And all the benefits to children when their parents are allowed to marry.
> 
> The benefits to those children make my proposal far better than 'useless'. Where as Sil can't even explain how denying marriage same sex parents helps their children. Or any child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A set of married parents means a father and a mother.  You only hurt a child by giving him a mockery of what he needs, in place of what he really needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are some of the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windsor v. US said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....
> 
> ....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, with some of the serious harms listed, tell us....*how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? *
> 
> Sil has never been able to give us any credible answer. And instead insists that they should be harmed. Perhaps you can do better.
Click to expand...

If you ask the wrong questions, you'll get the wrong answers.

Mark


----------



## Silhouette

Carla_Danger said:


> What if your choices are this couple...



Which one of those two gay men are going to sit the little baby girl (was she born out of one of their anuses?) down when she's a preteen and discuss with her all the nuances of menstruation?  The only way a mother could/would advise her daughter?..childbirth?  How to wade through hetero men for "the right one"?

Which one will be the actual mother to the child?  Neither? So if those two are "married", they have stripped that little girl of a mother for life as a matter of newly binding contract.  Well done, Obergefell..  Except that New York vs Ferber says that no adults can harm a child physically or psychologically in the course of their enjoying a civil right, real or invented last Summer and tacked onto the Constitution by 5 Justices legislating from the Bench..


Asclepias said:


> Probably the one that has the most knowledge on the subject. Youre acting like male gynecologists dont exist.



Which male or female for that matter gynecologist has distinct knowledge of a family's matriarchal peculiar menstrual cycles (that vary quite widely) for a girl adopted by two men playing house?  Only the girl's mother would have that unique advice.  Just like there is some advice a boy cannot get from his mother, about his hormones and how to control urges and play nice when his gonads are trying to call the shots... That's where dad steps in..  Oh, but wait, a boy with two lesbians can't have a father...for life..


----------



## EverCurious

My folks divorced when I was 5, my mom was remarried when I was 7 and I was raised calling my step-father "Father" - in fact I still do today.  Oddly I never had any trouble understanding or 'coping' with the fact that my step-father wasn't my bio father and it never mattered at all to me.  Why exactly would it be 'unsettling' or 'difficult' for a child in a gay coupling to know that they're parents did not /actually/ conceive them?

Edit: also my mother never talked to me about jack shit but not "embarrassing" her.  She never discussed menstruation, never talked about sex, none of that shit.  Hell she couldn't even take time off work to teach me to cook.  I turned out just fine - can burn water, but my boys know how to cook so it worked out heh


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another classic. Name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes? You can't b/c it hasn't and nor should it happen. Remember, Kim Davis isn't a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If present direction continues, then it will happen.
> 
> The line was crossed when bakers, photographers, and similar businesses were force by law to cater to disgusting homosexual mockeries of weddingsd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The line was crossed when Christians were told that they didn't get to ignore the law because they suddenly discovered they were Christians when they were asked to bake a cake for a gay couple.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
Click to expand...

Then there is no freedom of religion, and America is dead.

Mark


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...when she's a preteen and discuss with her all the nuances of menstruation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, I can't wait to here what those are exactly?  Who knew it was a secret thing men could not understand?  As I remember, my mom had a pretty good understanding of how a penis worked.
> 
> Period Starter Kit
> 
> Tampax Pearl Lite, Your Perfect First Tampon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nuances...particulars known to each matriarchal line.  Women of different families have completely different cyclical flows and issues.  Just like my farm females all have different cycles peculiar to their unique genetic lines.  You didn't know that.  You have just made my point.
Click to expand...


So that would mean you're against _anyone_ adopting girls then? Because they would be incapable of teaching your 'different cycles pecular to their unique genetic lines'. 

If not, why not?


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another classic. Name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes? You can't b/c it hasn't and nor should it happen. Remember, Kim Davis isn't a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If present direction continues, then it will happen.
> 
> The line was crossed when bakers, photographers, and similar businesses were force by law to cater to disgusting homosexual mockeries of weddingsd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The line was crossed when Christians were told that they didn't get to ignore the law because they suddenly discovered they were Christians when they were asked to bake a cake for a gay couple.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then there is no freedom of religion, and America is dead.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

If Christians are subject to the law, there is no freedom of religion?

Are Muslims equally free from any civil law? Does Sharia trump civil law?


----------



## Asclepias

Silhouette said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if your choices are this couple...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those two gay men are going to sit the little baby girl (was she born out of one of their anuses?) down when she's a preteen and discuss with her all the nuances of menstruation?  The only way a mother could/would advise her daughter?..childbirth?  How to wade through hetero men for "the right one"?
> 
> Which one will be the actual mother to the child?  Neither? So if those two are "married", they have stripped that little girl of a mother for life as a matter of newly binding contract.  Well done, Obergefell..  Except that New York vs Ferber says that no adults can harm a child physically or psychologically in the course of their enjoying a civil right, real or invented last Summer and tacked onto the Constitution by 5 Justices legislating from the Bench..
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably the one that has the most knowledge on the subject. Youre acting like male gynecologists dont exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which male or female for that matter gynecologist has distinct knowledge of a family's matriarchal peculiar menstrual cycles (that vary quite widely) for a girl adopted by two men playing house?  Only the girl's mother would have that unique advice.  Just like there is some advice a boy cannot get from his mother, about his hormones and how to control urges and play nice when his gonads are trying to call the shots... That's where dad steps in..  Oh, but wait, a boy with two lesbians can't have a father...for life..
Click to expand...

So now you dont want children to be adopted?  How would a female/male couple adopting a female child know the family history?


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a man and a woman, a father and a mother, to create a child.
> 
> That is also what it takes to comprise a functional set of parents to that child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, Bob....the capacity to conceive a child isn't what makes good parents. Loving, caring for, providing for and nurturing your child is what makes good parents. All of which a same sex couple can do and an opposite sex couple can do.
Click to expand...

Not if you believe that a child needs both genders to have a balanced upbringing.

Mark


----------



## Asclepias

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a man and a woman, a father and a mother, to create a child.
> 
> That is also what it takes to comprise a functional set of parents to that child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, Bob....the capacity to conceive a child isn't what makes good parents. Loving, caring for, providing for and nurturing your child is what makes good parents. All of which a same sex couple can do and an opposite sex couple can do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you believe that a child needs both genders to have a balanced upbringing.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Doesnt matter what you believe. Reality is much more credible.


----------



## 80zephyr

EverCurious said:


> My folks divorced when I was 5, my mom was remarried when I was 7 and I was raised calling my step-father "Father" - in fact I still do today.  Oddly I never had any trouble understanding or 'coping' with the fact that my step-father wasn't my bio father and it never mattered at all to me.  Why exactly would it be 'unsettling' or 'difficult' for a child in a gay coupling to know that they're parents did not /actually/ conceive them?
> 
> Edit: also my mother never talked to me about jack shit but not "embarrassing" her.  She never discussed menstruation, never talked about sex, none of that shit.  Hell she couldn't even take time off work to teach me to cook.  I turned out just fine - can burn water, but my boys know how to cook so it worked out heh


According to the poll on this thread, you are a rarity. Do you agree?

Mark


----------



## Silhouette

Asclepias said:


> Doesnt matter what you believe. Reality is much more credible.



And reality shows a huge section of Americans believe that both a mother and father are necessary to a child.  That's what the poll says folks.


----------



## 80zephyr

Asclepias said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a man and a woman, a father and a mother, to create a child.
> 
> That is also what it takes to comprise a functional set of parents to that child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, Bob....the capacity to conceive a child isn't what makes good parents. Loving, caring for, providing for and nurturing your child is what makes good parents. All of which a same sex couple can do and an opposite sex couple can do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you believe that a child needs both genders to have a balanced upbringing.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesnt matter what you believe. Reality is much more credible.
Click to expand...


You're right. Reality is much more credible. And reality created nature. And nature created the two genders so they could procreate.

 Now, thats reality. Not some "made up" scenario devised by mankind.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another classic. Name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes? You can't b/c it hasn't and nor should it happen. Remember, Kim Davis isn't a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If present direction continues, then it will happen.
> 
> The line was crossed when bakers, photographers, and similar businesses were force by law to cater to disgusting homosexual mockeries of weddingsd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The line was crossed when Christians were told that they didn't get to ignore the law because they suddenly discovered they were Christians when they were asked to bake a cake for a gay couple.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then there is no freedom of religion, and America is dead.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Christians are subject to the law, there is no freedom of religion?
> 
> Are Muslims equally free from any civil law? Does Sharia trump civil law?
Click to expand...


Sharia law is not the religion of Islam. 

Bakers opposed baking cakes because they believe gay marriage to be a sin. If baking a cake is not a sin, then driving the get-away car for a robbery isn't a crime either, correct?

Mark


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if your choices are this couple...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those two gay men are going to sit the little baby girl (was she born out of one of their anuses?) down when she's a preteen and discuss with her all the nuances of menstruation?  The only way a mother could/would advise her daughter?..childbirth?  How to wade through hetero men for "the right one"?
Click to expand...


An aunt, grandmother, family friend, pastor, couch, mentor, etc can. You really need to read the Prince's Trust study. It demonstrates that what a child needs is a positive same sex role model....and there's nothing that requires it be a parent. The Prince's Trust has an extensive mentoring program for just this purpose. 

And of course, how does denying these parents the right to marry help with any of these issues you've raised? As the courts have gone into elaborate detail how denying same sex marriage would hurt this little girl:



			
				Windsor v. US said:
			
		

> And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives...
> 
> ....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.



How would denying marriage to her parents benefit her?

There's a reason you keep running from this cartoon simple question: because there is no such benefit. Only harm.....for tens of thousands of children.



> Which one will be the actual mother to the child?  Neither? So if those two are "married", they have stripped that little girl of a mother for life as a matter of newly binding contract.  Well done, Obergefell..  Except that New York vs Ferber says that no adults can harm a child physically or psychologically in the course of their enjoying a civil right, real or invented last Summer and tacked onto the Constitution by 5 Justices legislating from the Bench..



Ferber never so much as mentions marriage. It was a case about kiddy porn. Which you know, but hope we don't.

And of course, the court found that denying marriage to same sex parents causes extensive harm to a child. So you ignore the findings of the Supreme Court and make up your own. But no court is going to ignore the findings of the Supreme Court and replace them with your imagination.


----------



## Asclepias

Silhouette said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesnt matter what you believe. Reality is much more credible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And reality shows a huge section of Americans believe that both a mother and father are necessary to a child.  That's what the poll says folks.
Click to expand...

And reality shows us thats not true as i pointed out before. Since the dawn of time children have been able to live without one or both parents no matter the sex.  The only thing that is necessary is that there is someone, anyone around.


----------



## mdk

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a man and a woman, a father and a mother, to create a child.
> 
> That is also what it takes to comprise a functional set of parents to that child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, Bob....the capacity to conceive a child isn't what makes good parents. Loving, caring for, providing for and nurturing your child is what makes good parents. All of which a same sex couple can do and an opposite sex couple can do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you believe that a child needs both genders to have a balanced upbringing.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


You're free to believe that all you wish but you still can't stop gay people from raising their biological and adoptive children.


----------



## Asclepias

80zephyr said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a man and a woman, a father and a mother, to create a child.
> 
> That is also what it takes to comprise a functional set of parents to that child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, Bob....the capacity to conceive a child isn't what makes good parents. Loving, caring for, providing for and nurturing your child is what makes good parents. All of which a same sex couple can do and an opposite sex couple can do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you believe that a child needs both genders to have a balanced upbringing.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesnt matter what you believe. Reality is much more credible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right. Reality is much more credible. And reality created nature. And nature created the two genders so they could procreate.
> 
> Now, thats reality. Not some "made up" scenario devised by mankind.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

I was with you until you deflected.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the highest law, in this nation, and the First Amendment is part of it.  You cannot advocate such blatant disregard for it, and still credibly speak of any rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 1st amendment doesn't mean that Christians or any religion can ignore every law. It never has. You're describing Christian Sharia, where any Christian can ignore any law they wish.
> 
> That's not our system or law.
Click to expand...

Says who? If a conscientious Christian cant live his life according to his religion, then the 1st Amendment is less than worthless because he basically has to "drop out" of society, forcing him to become a second class citizen.

Mark


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Skylar said:


> Again, same sex parents don't magically become opposite sex parents if you deny them marriage.



  Nor does allowing them to “marry” and adopt children.  All that does is to perpetrate a destructive fraud that will prove harmful to the children that are victimized by it.




Skylar said:


> I'll ask you, for the third time......how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?



  Not denying marriage.  Denying an insane fraud.  There is no such thing as “same sex marriage”, and efforts to create it will never be equal to genuine marriage.




Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> My Dad was killed for nothing in the skies over Vietnam and my mother went batshit crazy when I was 8 so I might as well not have had one
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes no parent would have been better than one or both.  Something Sil doesn't get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, society and child psychologists agree that children do best with both a mother and father.  The poll reflects that.  So it's not just me saying it.  You are facing a 90%+ majority paint..
Click to expand...


----------



## Asclepias

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the highest law, in this nation, and the First Amendment is part of it.  You cannot advocate such blatant disregard for it, and still credibly speak of any rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 1st amendment doesn't mean that Christians or any religion can ignore every law. It never has. You're describing Christian Sharia, where any Christian can ignore any law they wish.
> 
> That's not our system or law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says who? If a conscientious Christian cant live his life according to his religion, then the 1st Amendment is less than worthless because he basically has to "drop out" of society, forcing him to become a second class citizen.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

He can always move to another country then. The 1rst amendment doesnt stop you from being a christian.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, all the evidence you ignore.....we can still see it. Pretending none of it exists just demonstrates that your position is founded in willful ignorance
> 
> And of course, your insistence that we 'void' all same sex marriages doesn't do a thing to address what you consider the 'problem'*. As same sex parents denied marriage are still same sex parents. *All denying those parents marriage does is guarantee that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and help no child.
> 
> See how that works? Your proposal is worse than useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more so than yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the courts have gone into elaborate detail as to all the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage. And all the benefits to children when their parents are allowed to marry.
> 
> The benefits to those children make my proposal far better than 'useless'. Where as Sil can't even explain how denying marriage same sex parents helps their children. Or any child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A set of married parents means a father and a mother.  You only hurt a child by giving him a mockery of what he needs, in place of what he really needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are some of the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windsor v. US said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....
> 
> ....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, with some of the serious harms listed, tell us....*how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? *
> 
> Sil has never been able to give us any credible answer. And instead insists that they should be harmed. Perhaps you can do better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am still waiting also.
> 
> I know my marriage hasn't been harmed because gay couples can get married.
> I know my daughter is not harmed because children of gay couples can now have married parents.
> 
> Who are these fictional children who are harmed because Bob can marry Bill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bob appears to have run from the question like it was on fire. Sil has never done any better.
> 
> The reason is simple: *denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children.* As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and helps none.
Click to expand...


I'll answer it. Its very simple. Same sex couples don't have children.

Next question?

Mark


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another classic. Name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes? You can't b/c it hasn't and nor should it happen. Remember, Kim Davis isn't a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If present direction continues, then it will happen.
> 
> The line was crossed when bakers, photographers, and similar businesses were force by law to cater to disgusting homosexual mockeries of weddingsd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The line was crossed when Christians were told that they didn't get to ignore the law because they suddenly discovered they were Christians when they were asked to bake a cake for a gay couple.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then there is no freedom of religion, and America is dead.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Christians are subject to the law, there is no freedom of religion?
> 
> Are Muslims equally free from any civil law? Does Sharia trump civil law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sharia law is not the religion of Islam.
Click to expand...


According to who? I'm pretty sure that the Bible never mentions not issuing marriage certificates to same sex couples. But a Christian insisted her religious beliefs forbid it just the same.

Why would a Muslim not be able to make the same claims regarding any law they don't like?

If they felt their religion mandates something and the law forbid it....wouldn't that mean there is no freedom of religion?


----------



## HenryBHough

I read with interest the question of how a 2-male set of parents might explain menstruation to a female child - no matter how begotten.

The answer is quite simple.  

Elect Nutty Old Uncle Bernie and government will assign a tax-paid employee to handle all that delicate stuff.  However you'll have to accept that the employee may be female, male, or undecided.


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, all the evidence you ignore.....we can still see it. Pretending none of it exists just demonstrates that your position is founded in willful ignorance
> 
> And of course, your insistence that we 'void' all same sex marriages doesn't do a thing to address what you consider the 'problem'*. As same sex parents denied marriage are still same sex parents. *All denying those parents marriage does is guarantee that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and help no child.
> 
> See how that works? Your proposal is worse than useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more so than yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the courts have gone into elaborate detail as to all the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage. And all the benefits to children when their parents are allowed to marry.
> 
> The benefits to those children make my proposal far better than 'useless'. Where as Sil can't even explain how denying marriage same sex parents helps their children. Or any child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A set of married parents means a father and a mother.  You only hurt a child by giving him a mockery of what he needs, in place of what he really needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are some of the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windsor v. US said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....
> 
> ....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, with some of the serious harms listed, tell us....*how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? *
> 
> Sil has never been able to give us any credible answer. And instead insists that they should be harmed. Perhaps you can do better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am still waiting also.
> 
> I know my marriage hasn't been harmed because gay couples can get married.
> I know my daughter is not harmed because children of gay couples can now have married parents.
> 
> Who are these fictional children who are harmed because Bob can marry Bill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bob appears to have run from the question like it was on fire. Sil has never done any better.
> 
> The reason is simple: *denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children.* As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and helps none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll answer it. Its very simple. Same sex couples don't have children.
> 
> Next question?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Sure they do. Through the same processes used by couples who adopt or when one of the partners is sterile.

So how would denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> I'll answer it. Its very simple. Same sex couples don't have children.


Does that go for opposite couples, who can't make babies?


----------



## Asclepias

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, all the evidence you ignore.....we can still see it. Pretending none of it exists just demonstrates that your position is founded in willful ignorance
> 
> And of course, your insistence that we 'void' all same sex marriages doesn't do a thing to address what you consider the 'problem'*. As same sex parents denied marriage are still same sex parents. *All denying those parents marriage does is guarantee that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and help no child.
> 
> See how that works? Your proposal is worse than useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more so than yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the courts have gone into elaborate detail as to all the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage. And all the benefits to children when their parents are allowed to marry.
> 
> The benefits to those children make my proposal far better than 'useless'. Where as Sil can't even explain how denying marriage same sex parents helps their children. Or any child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A set of married parents means a father and a mother.  You only hurt a child by giving him a mockery of what he needs, in place of what he really needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are some of the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windsor v. US said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....
> 
> ....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, with some of the serious harms listed, tell us....*how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? *
> 
> Sil has never been able to give us any credible answer. And instead insists that they should be harmed. Perhaps you can do better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am still waiting also.
> 
> I know my marriage hasn't been harmed because gay couples can get married.
> I know my daughter is not harmed because children of gay couples can now have married parents.
> 
> Who are these fictional children who are harmed because Bob can marry Bill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bob appears to have run from the question like it was on fire. Sil has never done any better.
> 
> The reason is simple: *denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children.* As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and helps none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll answer it. Its very simple. Same sex couples don't have children.
> 
> Next question?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Why do you believe this to be true?  I've seen plenty of same sex couples raising children. I dated a girl raised by two lesbians.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Silhouette said:


> That's interesting...where do you suppose the babies they're "parenting" came from?  Were they born out another man's anus (artificial vagina)?  Or were they sired by a lesbian's strapon?  Poor you.    Biology alone tells us your platfom is patently insane..



  Don't forget that you're arguing with someone who probably believes that Bruce Jenner is a woman.

  Liberalism is madness, and the LGBpbWTF branch thereof doubly so.


----------



## Skylar

HenryBHough said:


> I read with interest the question of how a 2-male set of parents might explain menstruation to a female child - no matter how begotten.
> 
> The answer is quite simple.
> 
> Elect Nutty Old Uncle Bernie and government will assign a tax-paid employee to handle all that delicate stuff.  However you'll have to accept that the employee may be female, male, or undecided.



Or have an aunt, grandmother, older sister, family friend, mentor, coach, pastor, etc tell them. What children need are positive same sex role models. There's nothing that requires that these role models be parents.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting...where do you suppose the babies they're "parenting" came from?  Were they born out another man's anus (artificial vagina)?  Or were they sired by a lesbian's strapon?  Poor you.    Biology alone tells us your platfom is patently insane..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget that you're arguing with someone who probably believes that Bruce Jenner is a woman.
> 
> Liberalism is madness, and the LGBpbWTF branch thereof doubly so.
Click to expand...


Can you quote me saying that? Or is that just another red herring?


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, all the evidence you ignore.....we can still see it. Pretending none of it exists just demonstrates that your position is founded in willful ignorance
> 
> And of course, your insistence that we 'void' all same sex marriages doesn't do a thing to address what you consider the 'problem'*. As same sex parents denied marriage are still same sex parents. *All denying those parents marriage does is guarantee that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and help no child.
> 
> See how that works? Your proposal is worse than useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more so than yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the courts have gone into elaborate detail as to all the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage. And all the benefits to children when their parents are allowed to marry.
> 
> The benefits to those children make my proposal far better than 'useless'. Where as Sil can't even explain how denying marriage same sex parents helps their children. Or any child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A set of married parents means a father and a mother.  You only hurt a child by giving him a mockery of what he needs, in place of what he really needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are some of the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windsor v. US said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....
> 
> ....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, with some of the serious harms listed, tell us....*how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? *
> 
> Sil has never been able to give us any credible answer. And instead insists that they should be harmed. Perhaps you can do better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am still waiting also.
> 
> I know my marriage hasn't been harmed because gay couples can get married.
> I know my daughter is not harmed because children of gay couples can now have married parents.
> 
> Who are these fictional children who are harmed because Bob can marry Bill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bob appears to have run from the question like it was on fire. Sil has never done any better.
> 
> The reason is simple: *denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children.* As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and helps none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll answer it. Its very simple. Same sex couples don't have children.
> 
> Next question?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Our daughter would be very surprised to hear that.


----------



## Asclepias

Bob Blaylock said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting...where do you suppose the babies they're "parenting" came from?  Were they born out another man's anus (artificial vagina)?  Or were they sired by a lesbian's strapon?  Poor you.    Biology alone tells us your platfom is patently insane..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget that you're arguing with someone who probably believes that Bruce Jenner is a woman.
> 
> Liberalism is madness, and the LGBpbWTF branch thereof doubly so.
Click to expand...

No one is arguing. We are pointing out the fallacy in his position and he is having a hard time coming to terms with it.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another classic. Name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes? You can't b/c it hasn't and nor should it happen. Remember, Kim Davis isn't a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If present direction continues, then it will happen.
> 
> The line was crossed when bakers, photographers, and similar businesses were force by law to cater to disgusting homosexual mockeries of weddingsd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The line was crossed when Christians were told that they didn't get to ignore the law because they suddenly discovered they were Christians when they were asked to bake a cake for a gay couple.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then there is no freedom of religion, and America is dead.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

So you don't think christians have to follow the law?   They have their own sharia law?


----------



## 80zephyr

Asclepias said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason is simple: *denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children.* As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and helps none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex.  Marriage, by definition, always has been, and will always be, between a man and a woman.
> 
> You do not help children by offering them a fraudulent mockery, and insisting that it is the same as the genuine thing that is being mocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Definitions change. Matter of fact gay used to mean happy.
Click to expand...

No, definitions do not change. Stupid people tell us they change. We now have "definitions" that tell us a man is a woman, a white is a black, and a middle aged man is really a six year old girl.

We have "transabled" people that tell us that they REALLY are disabled, and trans species people that tell us they really are a cat.

Reality tells us one thing, and delusional people tell us we are wrong.

We're not.

*We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.
George Orwell*

Mark


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the highest law, in this nation, and the First Amendment is part of it.  You cannot advocate such blatant disregard for it, and still credibly speak of any rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 1st amendment doesn't mean that Christians or any religion can ignore every law. It never has. You're describing Christian Sharia, where any Christian can ignore any law they wish.
> 
> That's not our system or law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says who?
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court and our history of laws. 



			
				Justice Scalia said:
			
		

> "To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is 'compelling' - permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, 'to become a law unto himself,' contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.' To adopt a true 'compelling interest' requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy."



Religion doesn't exempt you from any law you don't like. 

Get used to the idea. 



> If a conscientious Christian cant live his life according to his religion, then the 1st Amendment is less than worthless because he basically has to "drop out" of society, forcing him to become a second class citizen.
> 
> Mark


Would the same apply to a conscientious Muslim? If they felt that living under Sharia were living their life according to their religion.....does Sharia similarly trump any civil law?

If not, why not? Remember, when you raise religious belief above any law.....you do it for any religion. And any belief.


----------



## EverCurious

80zephyr said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> My folks divorced when I was 5, my mom was remarried when I was 7 and I was raised calling my step-father "Father" - in fact I still do today.  Oddly I never had any trouble understanding or 'coping' with the fact that my step-father wasn't my bio father and it never mattered at all to me.  Why exactly would it be 'unsettling' or 'difficult' for a child in a gay coupling to know that they're parents did not /actually/ conceive them?
> 
> Edit: also my mother never talked to me about jack shit but not "embarrassing" her.  She never discussed menstruation, never talked about sex, none of that shit.  Hell she couldn't even take time off work to teach me to cook.  I turned out just fine - can burn water, but my boys know how to cook so it worked out heh
> 
> 
> 
> According to the poll on this thread, you are a rarity. Do you agree?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


hmmm In some ways yes, but in a lot of ways no.  Almost everyone I knew growing up, prob. 70% of them, came from a so-called "broken" family, but we're all pretty happy as adults.  Most of em were military kids; and military relationships divorce a lot (in my case my Mom didn't want to leave Alaska and her career, and my Dad wanted to go back to the farm, so they split.)  Some of the folks I knew didn't have a re-marriage and were raised by a single parent (mostly moms cause that was the trend, but there were a couple being raised by their fathers) I'd almost say the ones with a single parent did better financially, but I've not really done a study or anything, just kind of off the top of my head - only like two of them are hurting financially...  Like one of them is a dipshit, but it's no surprise as she was heavy into drugs well into adulthood ... can't remember her parents exactly, but I think she had a single mom parent... 

So yea, idk if I'd be an exception to some norm because it was kind of common up here, but idk about the lower 48 - it's like a different country most of the time...


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> My Dad was killed for nothing in the skies over Vietnam and my mother went batshit crazy when I was 8 so I might as well not have had one
> 
> 
> 
> And you were the better or worse for not having either a mom or dad, do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could someone possibly know that unless they were able to travel back in time then forward in time following two different time lines?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By watching the joys and lessons & advantages of their peers who had a mom and dad, unlike them.
> 
> I hope Skull Pilot that you find healing.  It's tough without the proper foundation.  But even with those of us who grew up minus a mom or dad, we can fill those gaps with time and patience with our process.
Click to expand...


I have to wonderful parents who raised me well.

My neighbor down the street had two opposite gender parents and her father secretly molested her from the time she was 5 years old.

I didn't know about the molestation until decades later- but I certainly knew her family was dysfunctional.

Would she have preferred two lesbian mothers to the family she had- absolutely. She would have preferred any family situation other than the one that included her father. 

What lessons should I learn from that peer who had a mom and a dad?


----------



## mdk

Bob Blaylock said:


> Liberalism is madness, and the LGBpbWTF branch thereof doubly so.



I hope getting that off your chest helps soothe your irrelevance.


----------



## bodecea

Silhouette said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesnt matter what you believe. Reality is much more credible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And reality shows a huge section of Americans believe that both a mother and father are necessary to a child.  That's what the poll says folks.
Click to expand...

No...that is NOT what your poll said...you might want to look at your own words that you typed with your own little hands.


----------



## 80zephyr

mdk said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a man and a woman, a father and a mother, to create a child.
> 
> That is also what it takes to comprise a functional set of parents to that child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, Bob....the capacity to conceive a child isn't what makes good parents. Loving, caring for, providing for and nurturing your child is what makes good parents. All of which a same sex couple can do and an opposite sex couple can do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you believe that a child needs both genders to have a balanced upbringing.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to believe that all you wish but you still can't stop gay people from raising their biological and adoptive children.
Click to expand...


A gay couple cannot have a biological child. I don't have to "stop them". Nature does that.

Mark


----------



## Asclepias

80zephyr said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason is simple: *denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children.* As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and helps none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex.  Marriage, by definition, always has been, and will always be, between a man and a woman.
> 
> You do not help children by offering them a fraudulent mockery, and insisting that it is the same as the genuine thing that is being mocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Definitions change. Matter of fact gay used to mean happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, definitions do not change. Stupid people tell us they change. We now have "definitions" that tell us a man is a woman, a white is a black, and a middle aged man is really a six year old girl.
> 
> We have "transabled" people that tell us that they REALLY are disabled, and trans species people that tell us they really are a cat.
> 
> Reality tells us one thing, and delusional people tell us we are wrong.
> 
> We're not.
> 
> *We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.
> George Orwell*
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Yes definitions change all the time. There was a time when emancipation simply meant transfer of ownership. I'll let you think about that one and the implications.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another classic. Name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes? You can't b/c it hasn't and nor should it happen. Remember, Kim Davis isn't a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If present direction continues, then it will happen.
> 
> The line was crossed when bakers, photographers, and similar businesses were force by law to cater to disgusting homosexual mockeries of weddingsd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The line was crossed when Christians were told that they didn't get to ignore the law because they suddenly discovered they were Christians when they were asked to bake a cake for a gay couple.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then there is no freedom of religion, and America is dead.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


  The highest law says that there is, but those who are saying that _“Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.”_ are not willing to allow this highest law to be obeyed.  Hypocrites!


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Again, same sex parents don't magically become opposite sex parents* if you deny them marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting...where do you suppose the babies they're "parenting" came from?  Were they born out another man's anus (artificial vagina)?  .
Click to expand...


Tell us more about these babies you believe were born out of a man's anus?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> A gay couple cannot have a biological child. I don't have to "stop them". Nature does that.


Sure they can, if they are of the opposite sex...

Poor Marky is having a tough time with the logic here.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a man and a woman, a father and a mother, to create a child.
> 
> That is also what it takes to comprise a functional set of parents to that child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, Bob....the capacity to conceive a child isn't what makes good parents. Loving, caring for, providing for and nurturing your child is what makes good parents. All of which a same sex couple can do and an opposite sex couple can do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you believe that a child needs both genders to have a balanced upbringing.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesnt matter what you believe. Reality is much more credible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right. Reality is much more credible. And reality created nature. And nature created the two genders so they could procreate.
> 
> Now, thats reality. Not some "made up" scenario devised by mankind.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

So you are against adoption and any medical assistance for sterile couples.   OK,   dont' adopt and don't use fertility clinics.   But don't think you can tell us what we can or cannot do based on your christian sharia.


----------



## 80zephyr

Asclepias said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the highest law, in this nation, and the First Amendment is part of it.  You cannot advocate such blatant disregard for it, and still credibly speak of any rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 1st amendment doesn't mean that Christians or any religion can ignore every law. It never has. You're describing Christian Sharia, where any Christian can ignore any law they wish.
> 
> That's not our system or law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says who? If a conscientious Christian cant live his life according to his religion, then the 1st Amendment is less than worthless because he basically has to "drop out" of society, forcing him to become a second class citizen.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He can always move to another country then. The 1rst amendment doesnt stop you from being a christian.
Click to expand...

If you can't live your faith, then you aren't free to practice your religion. The 1st becomes nothing more than words.

Mark


----------



## Asclepias

80zephyr said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a man and a woman, a father and a mother, to create a child.
> 
> That is also what it takes to comprise a functional set of parents to that child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, Bob....the capacity to conceive a child isn't what makes good parents. Loving, caring for, providing for and nurturing your child is what makes good parents. All of which a same sex couple can do and an opposite sex couple can do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you believe that a child needs both genders to have a balanced upbringing.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to believe that all you wish but you still can't stop gay people from raising their biological and adoptive children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gay couple cannot have a biological child. I don't have to "stop them". Nature does that.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

I know this guy I used to work with that had 4 sons and he was so gay he actually slept with another guy on his wedding night.  The only reason he had kids was because he was trying to conform to social expectations.


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason is simple: *denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children.* As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and helps none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex.  Marriage, by definition, always has been, and will always be, between a man and a woman.
> 
> You do not help children by offering them a fraudulent mockery, and insisting that it is the same as the genuine thing that is being mocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Definitions change. Matter of fact gay used to mean happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, definitions do not change.
Click to expand...


They change all the time.  'Faggots' used to mean a bundle of sticks. 'Gay' used to mean happy. And legal definitions change regularly. 

The idea that all definitions remain immutable and can never change is provably false. 

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries

Why would I ignore the dictionary...and instead believe you? Why would any rational person?


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the highest law, in this nation, and the First Amendment is part of it.  You cannot advocate such blatant disregard for it, and still credibly speak of any rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 1st amendment doesn't mean that Christians or any religion can ignore every law. It never has. You're describing Christian Sharia, where any Christian can ignore any law they wish.
> 
> That's not our system or law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says who? If a conscientious Christian cant live his life according to his religion, then the 1st Amendment is less than worthless because he basically has to "drop out" of society, forcing him to become a second class citizen.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He can always move to another country then. The 1rst amendment doesnt stop you from being a christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't live your faith, then you aren't free to practice your religion. The 1st becomes nothing more than words.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


So Sharia now trumps civil law?


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a man and a woman, a father and a mother, to create a child.
> 
> That is also what it takes to comprise a functional set of parents to that child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, Bob....the capacity to conceive a child isn't what makes good parents. Loving, caring for, providing for and nurturing your child is what makes good parents. All of which a same sex couple can do and an opposite sex couple can do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you believe that a child needs both genders to have a balanced upbringing.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesnt matter what you believe. Reality is much more credible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right. Reality is much more credible. And reality created nature. And nature created the two genders so they could procreate.
> 
> Now, thats reality. Not some "made up" scenario devised by mankind.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are against adoption and any medical assistance for sterile couples.   OK,   dont' adopt and don't use fertility clinics.   But don't think you can tell us what we can or cannot do based on your christian sharia.
Click to expand...


Lol. What??

Mark


----------



## Asclepias

80zephyr said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the highest law, in this nation, and the First Amendment is part of it.  You cannot advocate such blatant disregard for it, and still credibly speak of any rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 1st amendment doesn't mean that Christians or any religion can ignore every law. It never has. You're describing Christian Sharia, where any Christian can ignore any law they wish.
> 
> That's not our system or law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says who? If a conscientious Christian cant live his life according to his religion, then the 1st Amendment is less than worthless because he basically has to "drop out" of society, forcing him to become a second class citizen.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He can always move to another country then. The 1rst amendment doesnt stop you from being a christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't live your faith, then you aren't free to practice your religion. The 1st becomes nothing more than words.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Sounds like you need a new country if you feel that way.


----------



## mdk

80zephyr said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a man and a woman, a father and a mother, to create a child.
> 
> That is also what it takes to comprise a functional set of parents to that child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, Bob....the capacity to conceive a child isn't what makes good parents. Loving, caring for, providing for and nurturing your child is what makes good parents. All of which a same sex couple can do and an opposite sex couple can do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you believe that a child needs both genders to have a balanced upbringing.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to believe that all you wish but you still can't stop gay people from raising their biological and adoptive children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gay couple cannot have a biological child. I don't have to "stop them". Nature does that.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Gay couples will just use the same avenue as infertile couples. You still can't do a thing about it.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason is simple: *denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children.* As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and helps none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex.  Marriage, by definition, always has been, and will always be, between a man and a woman.
> 
> You do not help children by offering them a fraudulent mockery, and insisting that it is the same as the genuine thing that is being mocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Definitions change. Matter of fact gay used to mean happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, definitions do not change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They change all the time.  'Faggots' used to mean a bundle of sticks. 'Gay' used to mean happy. And legal definitions change regularly.
> 
> The idea that all definitions remain immutable and can never change is provably false.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> Why would I ignore the dictionary...and instead believe you? Why would any rational person?
Click to expand...


Because rational people understand that you can call a turnip a rose, but its still not a rose.

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another classic. Name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes? You can't b/c it hasn't and nor should it happen. Remember, Kim Davis isn't a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If present direction continues, then it will happen.
> 
> The line was crossed when bakers, photographers, and similar businesses were force by law to cater to disgusting homosexual mockeries of weddingsd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The line was crossed when Christians were told that they didn't get to ignore the law because they suddenly discovered they were Christians when they were asked to bake a cake for a gay couple.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then there is no freedom of religion, and America is dead.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The highest law says that there is, but those who are saying that _“Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.”_ are not willing to allow this highest law to be obeyed.  Hypocrites!
Click to expand...


Of course we all have Freedom of Religion. 

That doesn't mean you get to kill your child for disobeying you and not be sent to prison for murder because you claim it is okay because you are just following what the Bible told you.

Christians have to follow the law just like everyone else


----------



## 80zephyr

Asclepias said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the highest law, in this nation, and the First Amendment is part of it.  You cannot advocate such blatant disregard for it, and still credibly speak of any rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1st amendment doesn't mean that Christians or any religion can ignore every law. It never has. You're describing Christian Sharia, where any Christian can ignore any law they wish.
> 
> That's not our system or law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says who? If a conscientious Christian cant live his life according to his religion, then the 1st Amendment is less than worthless because he basically has to "drop out" of society, forcing him to become a second class citizen.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He can always move to another country then. The 1rst amendment doesnt stop you from being a christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't live your faith, then you aren't free to practice your religion. The 1st becomes nothing more than words.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you need a new country if you feel that way.
Click to expand...

No, what I need is for the country I am in to start following its own constitution.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another classic. Name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes? You can't b/c it hasn't and nor should it happen. Remember, Kim Davis isn't a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If present direction continues, then it will happen.
> 
> The line was crossed when bakers, photographers, and similar businesses were force by law to cater to disgusting homosexual mockeries of weddingsd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The line was crossed when Christians were told that they didn't get to ignore the law because they suddenly discovered they were Christians when they were asked to bake a cake for a gay couple.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then there is no freedom of religion, and America is dead.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Christians are subject to the law, there is no freedom of religion?
> 
> Are Muslims equally free from any civil law? Does Sharia trump civil law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sharia law is not the religion of Islam.
> 
> Bakers opposed baking cakes because they believe gay marriage to be a sin. If baking a cake is not a sin, then driving the get-away car for a robbery isn't a crime either, correct?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Fascinating that you equate refusing to bake a cake as a business breaking civil business law with driving the get-away car in a robbery which is a crime punishable under criminal law.

Your inability to distinguish between the two should concern anyone who has any dealings with you in life.


----------



## Asclepias

80zephyr said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1st amendment doesn't mean that Christians or any religion can ignore every law. It never has. You're describing Christian Sharia, where any Christian can ignore any law they wish.
> 
> That's not our system or law.
> 
> 
> 
> Says who? If a conscientious Christian cant live his life according to his religion, then the 1st Amendment is less than worthless because he basically has to "drop out" of society, forcing him to become a second class citizen.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He can always move to another country then. The 1rst amendment doesnt stop you from being a christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't live your faith, then you aren't free to practice your religion. The 1st becomes nothing more than words.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you need a new country if you feel that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, what I need is for the country I am in to start following its own constitution.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

No you need a new country. This country is following its own constitution. Your freedom of religion is confined to the boundaries set forth in law. You dont get to sacrifice people in a bon fire just because your religion says so.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another classic. Name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes? You can't b/c it hasn't and nor should it happen. Remember, Kim Davis isn't a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If present direction continues, then it will happen.
> 
> The line was crossed when bakers, photographers, and similar businesses were force by law to cater to disgusting homosexual mockeries of weddingsd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The line was crossed when Christians were told that they didn't get to ignore the law because they suddenly discovered they were Christians when they were asked to bake a cake for a gay couple.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then there is no freedom of religion, and America is dead.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The highest law says that there is, but those who are saying that _“Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.”_ are not willing to allow this highest law to be obeyed.  Hypocrites!
Click to expand...


The 'highest law'? Which law are you referring to? If its the constitution, it never says that Christians are immune to any law they disagree with. Nor has it been practiced in such a fashion. 

With the Supreme Court shooting down the idea that religion makes one immune to any law;



			
				Employment Division said:
			
		

> ..To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is 'compelling' - permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, 'to become a law unto himself,' contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.' To adopt a true 'compelling interest' requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy."



And wouldn't Islam just as thoroughly trump our every law if your conception of the 'highest law' were valid? Does that mean that all US law is subservient and beneath Sharia by your interpretation?

If not, why not?


----------



## 80zephyr

mdk said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a man and a woman, a father and a mother, to create a child.
> 
> That is also what it takes to comprise a functional set of parents to that child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, Bob....the capacity to conceive a child isn't what makes good parents. Loving, caring for, providing for and nurturing your child is what makes good parents. All of which a same sex couple can do and an opposite sex couple can do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you believe that a child needs both genders to have a balanced upbringing.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to believe that all you wish but you still can't stop gay people from raising their biological and adoptive children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gay couple cannot have a biological child. I don't have to "stop them". Nature does that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay couples will just use the same avenue as infertile couples. You still can't do a thing about it.
Click to expand...


Lol. Gay couples? No such thing. One(or the other) might get pregnant, but NOT as a couple. Like I said, I don't have to "do a thing" about it. Its already done. 

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another classic. Name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes? You can't b/c it hasn't and nor should it happen. Remember, Kim Davis isn't a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If present direction continues, then it will happen.
> 
> The line was crossed when bakers, photographers, and similar businesses were force by law to cater to disgusting homosexual mockeries of weddingsd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The line was crossed when Christians were told that they didn't get to ignore the law because they suddenly discovered they were Christians when they were asked to bake a cake for a gay couple.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then there is no freedom of religion, and America is dead.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The highest law says that there is, but those who are saying that _“Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.”_ are not willing to allow this highest law to be obeyed.  Hypocrites!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course we all have Freedom of Religion.
> 
> That doesn't mean you get to kill your child for disobeying you and not be sent to prison for murder because you claim it is okay because you are just following what the Bible told you.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law just like everyone else
Click to expand...


Wow.

Mark


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1st amendment doesn't mean that Christians or any religion can ignore every law. It never has. You're describing Christian Sharia, where any Christian can ignore any law they wish.
> 
> That's not our system or law.
> 
> 
> 
> Says who? If a conscientious Christian cant live his life according to his religion, then the 1st Amendment is less than worthless because he basically has to "drop out" of society, forcing him to become a second class citizen.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He can always move to another country then. The 1rst amendment doesnt stop you from being a christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't live your faith, then you aren't free to practice your religion. The 1st becomes nothing more than words.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you need a new country if you feel that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, what I need is for the country I am in to start following its own constitution.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

And what country would that be....because in the United States, it's called the Constitution.....not constitution.   Ours is the first written and still the greatest.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if your choices are this couple...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those two gay men are going to sit the little baby girl (was she born out of one of their anuses?) down when she's a preteen and discuss with her all the nuances of menstruation?  .
Click to expand...


Wow- you are describing the exact situation of every single dad out there. I guess every daughter being raised by a single dad is being abused by your 'logic'

And exactly what biology book is teaching you that babies come out of anuses?


----------



## Carla_Danger

80zephyr said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> My folks divorced when I was 5, my mom was remarried when I was 7 and I was raised calling my step-father "Father" - in fact I still do today.  Oddly I never had any trouble understanding or 'coping' with the fact that my step-father wasn't my bio father and it never mattered at all to me.  Why exactly would it be 'unsettling' or 'difficult' for a child in a gay coupling to know that they're parents did not /actually/ conceive them?
> 
> Edit: also my mother never talked to me about jack shit but not "embarrassing" her.  She never discussed menstruation, never talked about sex, none of that shit.  Hell she couldn't even take time off work to teach me to cook.  I turned out just fine - can burn water, but my boys know how to cook so it worked out heh
> 
> 
> 
> According to the poll on this thread, you are a rarity. Do you agree?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...




This forum is full of idiots.


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, Bob....the capacity to conceive a child isn't what makes good parents. Loving, caring for, providing for and nurturing your child is what makes good parents. All of which a same sex couple can do and an opposite sex couple can do.
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you believe that a child needs both genders to have a balanced upbringing.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to believe that all you wish but you still can't stop gay people from raising their biological and adoptive children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gay couple cannot have a biological child. I don't have to "stop them". Nature does that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay couples will just use the same avenue as infertile couples. You still can't do a thing about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Gay couples? No such thing. One(or the other) might get pregnant, but NOT as a couple. Like I said, I don't have to "do a thing" about it. Its already done.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Says you. Again, your entire argument has degenerated into ignoring the law, the dictionary, the Supreme Court or anything you don't agree with...._and pretending it doesn't exist._

With same sex marriage legal in 50 of 50 States, how's that working out for you?


----------



## 80zephyr

Asclepias said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says who? If a conscientious Christian cant live his life according to his religion, then the 1st Amendment is less than worthless because he basically has to "drop out" of society, forcing him to become a second class citizen.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> He can always move to another country then. The 1rst amendment doesnt stop you from being a christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't live your faith, then you aren't free to practice your religion. The 1st becomes nothing more than words.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you need a new country if you feel that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, what I need is for the country I am in to start following its own constitution.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you need a new country. This country is following its own constitution. Your freedom of religion is confined to the boundaries set forth in law. You dont get to sacrifice people in a bon fire just because your religion says so.
Click to expand...

When I start using that example, we can discuss it.

Mark


----------



## Asclepias

80zephyr said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, Bob....the capacity to conceive a child isn't what makes good parents. Loving, caring for, providing for and nurturing your child is what makes good parents. All of which a same sex couple can do and an opposite sex couple can do.
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you believe that a child needs both genders to have a balanced upbringing.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to believe that all you wish but you still can't stop gay people from raising their biological and adoptive children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gay couple cannot have a biological child. I don't have to "stop them". Nature does that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay couples will just use the same avenue as infertile couples. You still can't do a thing about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Gay couples? No such thing. One(or the other) might get pregnant, but NOT as a couple. Like I said, I don't have to "do a thing" about it. Its already done.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

You do realize typically only one person gets pregnant even with heterosexual couples dont  you?


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, Bob....the capacity to conceive a child isn't what makes good parents. Loving, caring for, providing for and nurturing your child is what makes good parents. All of which a same sex couple can do and an opposite sex couple can do.
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you believe that a child needs both genders to have a balanced upbringing.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to believe that all you wish but you still can't stop gay people from raising their biological and adoptive children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gay couple cannot have a biological child. I don't have to "stop them". Nature does that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay couples will just use the same avenue as infertile couples. You still can't do a thing about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Gay couples? No such thing. One(or the other) might get pregnant, but NOT as a couple. Like I said, I don't have to "do a thing" about it. Its already done.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Our marriages must truely piss you off.   What kind of person is so devoid of their own life that they have to live vicariously thru hating the marriages of others...............so sad for you.


----------



## Asclepias

80zephyr said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> He can always move to another country then. The 1rst amendment doesnt stop you from being a christian.
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't live your faith, then you aren't free to practice your religion. The 1st becomes nothing more than words.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you need a new country if you feel that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, what I need is for the country I am in to start following its own constitution.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you need a new country. This country is following its own constitution. Your freedom of religion is confined to the boundaries set forth in law. You dont get to sacrifice people in a bon fire just because your religion says so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When I start using that example, we can discuss it.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Too late. We are already discussing it because I introduced it.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if your choices are this couple...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those two gay men are going to sit the little baby girl (was she born out of one of their anuses?) down when she's a preteen and discuss with her all the nuances of menstruation?  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- you are describing the exact situation of every single dad out there. I guess every daughter being raised by a single dad is being abused by your 'logic'
> 
> And exactly what biology book is teaching you that babies come out of anuses?
Click to expand...


Or anyone who has ever adopted a girl. Remember, Sil's made up the 'nuances of her unique genetic line' argument. 

By sil's own standards......adoptive parents can never marry.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> If present direction continues, then it will happen.
> 
> The line was crossed when bakers, photographers, and similar businesses were force by law to cater to disgusting homosexual mockeries of weddingsd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The line was crossed when Christians were told that they didn't get to ignore the law because they suddenly discovered they were Christians when they were asked to bake a cake for a gay couple.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then there is no freedom of religion, and America is dead.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The highest law says that there is, but those who are saying that _“Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.”_ are not willing to allow this highest law to be obeyed.  Hypocrites!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course we all have Freedom of Religion.
> 
> That doesn't mean you get to kill your child for disobeying you and not be sent to prison for murder because you claim it is okay because you are just following what the Bible told you.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law just like everyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Exactly- Wow- Christians don't get to kill their children just because the Bible says that is what should happen to disobedient children.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another classic. Name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes? You can't b/c it hasn't and nor should it happen. Remember, Kim Davis isn't a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If present direction continues, then it will happen.
> 
> The line was crossed when bakers, photographers, and similar businesses were force by law to cater to disgusting homosexual mockeries of weddingsd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The line was crossed when Christians were told that they didn't get to ignore the law because they suddenly discovered they were Christians when they were asked to bake a cake for a gay couple.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then there is no freedom of religion, and America is dead.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The highest law says that there is, but those who are saying that _“Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.”_ are not willing to allow this highest law to be obeyed.  Hypocrites!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'highest law'? Which law are you referring to? If its the constitution, it never says that Christians are immune to any law they disagree with. Nor has it been practiced in such a fashion.
> 
> With the Supreme Court shooting down the idea that religion makes one immune to any law;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Employment Division said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is 'compelling' - permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, 'to become a law unto himself,' contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.' To adopt a true 'compelling interest' requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And wouldn't Islam just as thoroughly trump our every law if your conception of the 'highest law' were valid? Does that mean that all US law is subservient and beneath Sharia by your interpretation?
> 
> If not, why not?
Click to expand...


Do you know how the Muslims practice Sharia law? They don't allow other religions to practice theirs.

Now, who is promoting Sharia law? You or me?

Mark


----------



## mdk

80zephyr said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, Bob....the capacity to conceive a child isn't what makes good parents. Loving, caring for, providing for and nurturing your child is what makes good parents. All of which a same sex couple can do and an opposite sex couple can do.
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you believe that a child needs both genders to have a balanced upbringing.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to believe that all you wish but you still can't stop gay people from raising their biological and adoptive children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gay couple cannot have a biological child. I don't have to "stop them". Nature does that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay couples will just use the same avenue as infertile couples. You still can't do a thing about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Gay couples? No such thing. One(or the other) might get pregnant, but NOT as a couple. Like I said, I don't have to "do a thing" about it. Its already done.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


And yet gay people are marrying and raising children all over the nation despite your whines on the web. 

Get over it. Or don't. Either way, it doesn't really matter as gays will continue to marry and raise their families with or without the blessing of some internet random.


----------



## Asclepias

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if your choices are this couple...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those two gay men are going to sit the little baby girl (was she born out of one of their anuses?) down when she's a preteen and discuss with her all the nuances of menstruation?  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- you are describing the exact situation of every single dad out there. I guess every daughter being raised by a single dad is being abused by your 'logic'
> 
> And exactly what biology book is teaching you that babies come out of anuses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or anyone who has ever adopted a girl. Remember, Sil's made up the 'nuances of her unique genetic line' argument.
> 
> By sil's own standards......adoptive parents can never marry.
Click to expand...

His argument is in shambles and destroyed. Most of the damage was self inflicted.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> Do you know how the Muslims practice Sharia law? They don't allow other religions to practice theirs.


Not true, Marky.  Learn Islam...


----------



## 80zephyr

Carla_Danger said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> My folks divorced when I was 5, my mom was remarried when I was 7 and I was raised calling my step-father "Father" - in fact I still do today.  Oddly I never had any trouble understanding or 'coping' with the fact that my step-father wasn't my bio father and it never mattered at all to me.  Why exactly would it be 'unsettling' or 'difficult' for a child in a gay coupling to know that they're parents did not /actually/ conceive them?
> 
> Edit: also my mother never talked to me about jack shit but not "embarrassing" her.  She never discussed menstruation, never talked about sex, none of that shit.  Hell she couldn't even take time off work to teach me to cook.  I turned out just fine - can burn water, but my boys know how to cook so it worked out heh
> 
> 
> 
> According to the poll on this thread, you are a rarity. Do you agree?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This forum is full of idiots.
Click to expand...


Why? You think its unnatural for a child to want his birth parents together?

Mark


----------



## PaintMyHouse

I wonder, does Marky think no homosexual should raise a child?

Maybe he wants to see a law to that effect?


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> If present direction continues, then it will happen.
> 
> The line was crossed when bakers, photographers, and similar businesses were force by law to cater to disgusting homosexual mockeries of weddingsd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The line was crossed when Christians were told that they didn't get to ignore the law because they suddenly discovered they were Christians when they were asked to bake a cake for a gay couple.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then there is no freedom of religion, and America is dead.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The highest law says that there is, but those who are saying that _“Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.”_ are not willing to allow this highest law to be obeyed.  Hypocrites!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'highest law'? Which law are you referring to? If its the constitution, it never says that Christians are immune to any law they disagree with. Nor has it been practiced in such a fashion.
> 
> With the Supreme Court shooting down the idea that religion makes one immune to any law;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Employment Division said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is 'compelling' - permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, 'to become a law unto himself,' contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.' To adopt a true 'compelling interest' requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And wouldn't Islam just as thoroughly trump our every law if your conception of the 'highest law' were valid? Does that mean that all US law is subservient and beneath Sharia by your interpretation?
> 
> If not, why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know how the Muslims practice Sharia law? They don't allow other religions to practice theirs.
Click to expand...


So to the extent that Sharia allows others to practice their religion....Sharia is supreme over US law?

Again, if religious supremacy over the law isn't limited to your flavor of Christianity. It would encompass *any* religion and any religious belief.

Surely you realize that, yes?

There's a reason why the Supreme Court laughed your 'religious supremacy' argument out of court;



			
				Employment Division said:
			
		

> ..To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is 'compelling' - permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, 'to become a law unto himself,' contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.' To adopt a true 'compelling interest' requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy."



And Scalia was right.



> Now, who is promoting Sharia law? You or me?
> 
> Mark



That would be you. As only you are arguing for religious supremacy over law. I'm saying what Justice Scalia said;

"permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, 'to become a law unto himself,' contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.' "


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, all the evidence you ignore.....we can still see it. Pretending none of it exists just demonstrates that your position is founded in willful ignorance
> 
> And of course, your insistence that we 'void' all same sex marriages doesn't do a thing to address what you consider the 'problem'*. As same sex parents denied marriage are still same sex parents. *All denying those parents marriage does is guarantee that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and help no child.
> 
> See how that works? Your proposal is worse than useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more so than yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the courts have gone into elaborate detail as to all the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage. And all the benefits to children when their parents are allowed to marry.
> 
> The benefits to those children make my proposal far better than 'useless'. Where as Sil can't even explain how denying marriage same sex parents helps their children. Or any child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A set of married parents means a father and a mother.  You only hurt a child by giving him a mockery of what he needs, in place of what he really needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are some of the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windsor v. US said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....
> 
> ....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, with some of the serious harms listed, tell us....*how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? *
> 
> Sil has never been able to give us any credible answer. And instead insists that they should be harmed. Perhaps you can do better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am still waiting also.
> 
> I know my marriage hasn't been harmed because gay couples can get married.
> I know my daughter is not harmed because children of gay couples can now have married parents.
> 
> Who are these fictional children who are harmed because Bob can marry Bill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bob appears to have run from the question like it was on fire. Sil has never done any better.
> 
> The reason is simple: *denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children.* As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and helps none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll answer it. Its very simple. Same sex couples don't have children.
> 
> Next question?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Well that is a fine display of your ignorance- my question is how did you get so ignorant?

Here are two couples- with their children- tell me the difference between them:


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting...where do you suppose the babies they're "parenting" came from?  Were they born out another man's anus (artificial vagina)?  Or were they sired by a lesbian's strapon?  Poor you.    Biology alone tells us your platfom is patently insane..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is madness, and the LGBpbWTF branch thereof doubly so.
Click to expand...


Remember- we are talking with someone who believes the world was created 6,000 years ago, and women are supposed to be subservient to men.

Relgious Conservativism is madness- and yours triply so.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> No more so than yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the courts have gone into elaborate detail as to all the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage. And all the benefits to children when their parents are allowed to marry.
> 
> The benefits to those children make my proposal far better than 'useless'. Where as Sil can't even explain how denying marriage same sex parents helps their children. Or any child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A set of married parents means a father and a mother.  You only hurt a child by giving him a mockery of what he needs, in place of what he really needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are some of the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windsor v. US said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....
> 
> ....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, with some of the serious harms listed, tell us....*how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? *
> 
> Sil has never been able to give us any credible answer. And instead insists that they should be harmed. Perhaps you can do better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am still waiting also.
> 
> I know my marriage hasn't been harmed because gay couples can get married.
> I know my daughter is not harmed because children of gay couples can now have married parents.
> 
> Who are these fictional children who are harmed because Bob can marry Bill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bob appears to have run from the question like it was on fire. Sil has never done any better.
> 
> The reason is simple: *denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children.* As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and helps none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll answer it. Its very simple. Same sex couples don't have children.
> 
> Next question?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that is a fine display of your ignorance- my question is how did you get so ignorant?
> 
> Here are two couples- with their children- tell me the difference between them:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 64547
Click to expand...

I'll take the dad on the far right, Alex, for several hundred million dollars.


----------



## mdk

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if your choices are this couple...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those two gay men are going to sit the little baby girl (was she born out of one of their anuses?) down when she's a preteen and discuss with her all the nuances of menstruation?  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- you are describing the exact situation of every single dad out there. I guess every daughter being raised by a single dad is being abused by your 'logic'
> 
> And exactly what biology book is teaching you that babies come out of anuses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or anyone who has ever adopted a girl. Remember, Sil's made up the 'nuances of her unique genetic line' argument.
> 
> By sil's own standards......adoptive parents can never marry.
Click to expand...



What truly makes a good parent is knowing the nuanced menstruation cycle history of the women in the adopted child's previous family.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Silhouette said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if your choices are this couple...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those two gay men are going to sit the little baby girl (was she born out of one of their anuses?) down when she's a preteen and discuss with her all the nuances of menstruation?  The only way a mother could/would advise her daughter?..childbirth?  How to wade through hetero men for "the right one"?
> 
> Which one will be the actual mother to the child?  Neither? So if those two are "married", they have stripped that little girl of a mother for life as a matter of newly binding contract.  Well done, Obergefell..  Except that New York vs Ferber says that no adults can harm a child physically or psychologically in the course of their enjoying a civil right, real or invented last Summer and tacked onto the Constitution by 5 Justices legislating from the Bench..
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably the one that has the most knowledge on the subject. Youre acting like male gynecologists dont exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which male or female for that matter gynecologist has distinct knowledge of a family's matriarchal peculiar menstrual cycles (that vary quite widely) for a girl adopted by two men playing house?  Only the girl's mother would have that unique advice.  Just like there is some advice a boy cannot get from his mother, about his hormones and how to control urges and play nice when his gonads are trying to call the shots... That's where dad steps in..  Oh, but wait, a boy with two lesbians can't have a father...for life..
Click to expand...



Wow, you are one crazy lady, with this obsession of yours. You need help.

If the child is adopted by a gay couple, that child has already been stripped from having her biological mother. And as far as advising a teenage girl on her menstrual cycle, there's always aunt June, or nurse Betty...weirdo.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where's the, Wish I'd missed out on this hell on earth option?



In the closet in the guise of a rope.

I'm just sayin....


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason is simple: *denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children.* As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and helps none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex.  Marriage, by definition, always has been, and will always be, between a man and a woman.
> 
> You do not help children by offering them a fraudulent mockery, and insisting that it is the same as the genuine thing that is being mocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Definitions change. Matter of fact gay used to mean happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, definitions do not change.k
Click to expand...


Definitions change all the time.

To deny that definitions of words change is frankly to deny reality, which is one of signatures of mental illness.

Example: faggot. gay. 

Anyone who knows the history of the English language is aware of words whose definitions have changed over time.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you believe that a child needs both genders to have a balanced upbringing.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're free to believe that all you wish but you still can't stop gay people from raising their biological and adoptive children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gay couple cannot have a biological child. I don't have to "stop them". Nature does that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay couples will just use the same avenue as infertile couples. You still can't do a thing about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Gay couples? No such thing. One(or the other) might get pregnant, but NOT as a couple. Like I said, I don't have to "do a thing" about it. Its already done.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says you. Again, your entire argument has degenerated into ignoring the law, the dictionary, the Supreme Court or anything you don't agree with...._and pretending it doesn't exist._
> 
> With same sex marriage legal in 50 of 50 States, how's that working out for you?
Click to expand...


I don't have to pretend anything. Reality doesn't have to be explained. George Orwell was right, of course. The denial of reality like in the book 1984, is happening now. And the left will be the reason for our demise.
*
So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot.
George Orwell*

And sadly, it is going to lead to this:
*
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
George Orwell*

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a man and a woman, a father and a mother, to create a child.
> 
> That is also what it takes to comprise a functional set of parents to that child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, Bob....the capacity to conceive a child isn't what makes good parents. Loving, caring for, providing for and nurturing your child is what makes good parents. All of which a same sex couple can do and an opposite sex couple can do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you believe that a child needs both genders to have a balanced upbringing.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to believe that all you wish but you still can't stop gay people from raising their biological and adoptive children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gay couple cannot have a biological child. I don't have to "stop them". Nature does that.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


All children are biological children- well maybe you have some robot that you call your child........


----------



## Uncensored2008

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how the Muslims practice Sharia law? They don't allow other religions to practice theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, Marky.  Learn Islam...
Click to expand...



Actually, what he said is true.

You know this, but chose to lie....


----------



## EverCurious

80zephyr said:


> Why? You think its unnatural for a child to want his birth parents together?
> 
> Mark



I cannot recall a single time I cared one way or the other that my parents had split up.  I just wanted them to be happy and they both were so it was all good.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The line was crossed when Christians were told that they didn't get to ignore the law because they suddenly discovered they were Christians when they were asked to bake a cake for a gay couple.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is no freedom of religion, and America is dead.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The highest law says that there is, but those who are saying that _“Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.”_ are not willing to allow this highest law to be obeyed.  Hypocrites!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course we all have Freedom of Religion.
> 
> That doesn't mean you get to kill your child for disobeying you and not be sent to prison for murder because you claim it is okay because you are just following what the Bible told you.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law just like everyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly- Wow- Christians don't get to kill their children just because the Bible says that is what should happen to disobedient children.
Click to expand...


Again...wow.

Mark


----------



## Carla_Danger

mdk said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if your choices are this couple...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those two gay men are going to sit the little baby girl (was she born out of one of their anuses?) down when she's a preteen and discuss with her all the nuances of menstruation?  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- you are describing the exact situation of every single dad out there. I guess every daughter being raised by a single dad is being abused by your 'logic'
> 
> And exactly what biology book is teaching you that babies come out of anuses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or anyone who has ever adopted a girl. Remember, Sil's made up the 'nuances of her unique genetic line' argument.
> 
> By sil's own standards......adoptive parents can never marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What truly makes a good parent is knowing the nuanced menstruation cycle history of the women in the adopted child's previous family.
Click to expand...




I talk to my mother on the phone every day, and I do not know the history of her menstruation cycle. I guess I better call her. lol


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the highest law, in this nation, and the First Amendment is part of it.  You cannot advocate such blatant disregard for it, and still credibly speak of any rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 1st amendment doesn't mean that Christians or any religion can ignore every law. It never has. You're describing Christian Sharia, where any Christian can ignore any law they wish.
> 
> That's not our system or law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says who? If a conscientious Christian cant live his life according to his religion, then the 1st Amendment is less than worthless because he basically has to "drop out" of society, forcing him to become a second class citizen.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He can always move to another country then. The 1rst amendment doesnt stop you from being a christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't live your faith, then you aren't free to practice your religion. The 1st becomes nothing more than words.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Really? 

So if your faith tells you to stone an adulterer to death- and you are not allowed by law to do so- then you aren't free to practice your religion and that First Amendment mean nothing?


----------



## 80zephyr

EverCurious said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? You think its unnatural for a child to want his birth parents together?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot recall a single time I cared one way or the other that my parents had split up.  I just wanted them to be happy and they both were so it was all good.
Click to expand...

Do you think that the respondents to the poll are lying? BTW, what age were you when your parents split?

Mark


----------



## EverCurious

I think the respondents to the polls might be a little more selfish than I was as a child perhaps.

I was 5 when my folks split up as I said.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how the Muslims practice Sharia law? They don't allow other religions to practice theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, Marky.  Learn Islam...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what he said is true.
> 
> You know this, but chose to lie....
Click to expand...

Nope.  Sharia law allows for other faiths.  Jews have been much safer under Muslims than the Christians many times.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how the Muslims practice Sharia law? They don't allow other religions to practice theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, Marky.  Learn Islam...
Click to expand...


Marky has. That is why Marky made the statement.

Marky


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is no freedom of religion, and America is dead.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The highest law says that there is, but those who are saying that _“Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.”_ are not willing to allow this highest law to be obeyed.  Hypocrites!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course we all have Freedom of Religion.
> 
> That doesn't mean you get to kill your child for disobeying you and not be sent to prison for murder because you claim it is okay because you are just following what the Bible told you.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law just like everyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly- Wow- Christians don't get to kill their children just because the Bible says that is what should happen to disobedient children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again...wow.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Wow- Mark is still unable to post an intelligent response.

Despite his fervent belief that if a Christian believes the Bible tells them that they should kill their children if they are disobedient that the First Amendment allows them to legally do so- he just can't respond.


----------



## mdk

Carla_Danger said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if your choices are this couple...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those two gay men are going to sit the little baby girl (was she born out of one of their anuses?) down when she's a preteen and discuss with her all the nuances of menstruation?  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- you are describing the exact situation of every single dad out there. I guess every daughter being raised by a single dad is being abused by your 'logic'
> 
> And exactly what biology book is teaching you that babies come out of anuses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or anyone who has ever adopted a girl. Remember, Sil's made up the 'nuances of her unique genetic line' argument.
> 
> By sil's own standards......adoptive parents can never marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What truly makes a good parent is knowing the nuanced menstruation cycle history of the women in the adopted child's previous family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I talk to my mother on the phone every day, and I do not know the history of her menstruation cycle. I guess I better call her. lol
Click to expand...


Your mother at least provided you with the _hope_ of knowing these cycles. lol.

We need more poll options:

I was raised by a mother and father but they never discussed the period cycles of Nanny Mary.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're free to believe that all you wish but you still can't stop gay people from raising their biological and adoptive children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A gay couple cannot have a biological child. I don't have to "stop them". Nature does that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay couples will just use the same avenue as infertile couples. You still can't do a thing about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Gay couples? No such thing. One(or the other) might get pregnant, but NOT as a couple. Like I said, I don't have to "do a thing" about it. Its already done.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says you. Again, your entire argument has degenerated into ignoring the law, the dictionary, the Supreme Court or anything you don't agree with...._and pretending it doesn't exist._
> 
> With same sex marriage legal in 50 of 50 States, how's that working out for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to pretend anything. Reality doesn't have to be explained.
Click to expand...


Clearly reality has to be explained to you- not that I have any hope that you will be able to accept reality.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the highest law, in this nation, and the First Amendment is part of it.  You cannot advocate such blatant disregard for it, and still credibly speak of any rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1st amendment doesn't mean that Christians or any religion can ignore every law. It never has. You're describing Christian Sharia, where any Christian can ignore any law they wish.
> 
> That's not our system or law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says who? If a conscientious Christian cant live his life according to his religion, then the 1st Amendment is less than worthless because he basically has to "drop out" of society, forcing him to become a second class citizen.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He can always move to another country then. The 1rst amendment doesnt stop you from being a christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't live your faith, then you aren't free to practice your religion. The 1st becomes nothing more than words.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> So if your faith tells you to stone an adulterer to death- and you are not allowed by law to do so- then you aren't free to practice your religion and that First Amendment mean nothing?
Click to expand...


Why is it that when the question of religion comes up that people insist on using stupid examples. Should religion be regulated?

YES.

If it causes harm to others.

Now, can we move on?

Mark


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're free to believe that all you wish but you still can't stop gay people from raising their biological and adoptive children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A gay couple cannot have a biological child. I don't have to "stop them". Nature does that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay couples will just use the same avenue as infertile couples. You still can't do a thing about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Gay couples? No such thing. One(or the other) might get pregnant, but NOT as a couple. Like I said, I don't have to "do a thing" about it. Its already done.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says you. Again, your entire argument has degenerated into ignoring the law, the dictionary, the Supreme Court or anything you don't agree with...._and pretending it doesn't exist._
> 
> With same sex marriage legal in 50 of 50 States, how's that working out for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to pretend anything. Reality doesn't have to be explained. George Orwell was right, of course. The denial of reality like in the book 1984, is happening now. And the left will be the reason for our demise.
> *
> So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot.
> George Orwell*
> 
> And sadly, it is going to lead to this:
> *
> If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
> George Orwell*
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Except that its not. You've literally insisted that definitions *never* change. That's just nonsense. They change all the time. 

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)

Why would any rational person ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how the Muslims practice Sharia law? They don't allow other religions to practice theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, Marky.  Learn Islam...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marky has. That is why Marky made the statement.
> 
> Marky
Click to expand...

No, Marky obviously has not.  The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1st amendment doesn't mean that Christians or any religion can ignore every law. It never has. You're describing Christian Sharia, where any Christian can ignore any law they wish.
> 
> That's not our system or law.
> 
> 
> 
> Says who? If a conscientious Christian cant live his life according to his religion, then the 1st Amendment is less than worthless because he basically has to "drop out" of society, forcing him to become a second class citizen.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He can always move to another country then. The 1rst amendment doesnt stop you from being a christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't live your faith, then you aren't free to practice your religion. The 1st becomes nothing more than words.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you need a new country if you feel that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, what I need is for the country I am in to start following its own constitution.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


And so says everyone who has ever disagreed with a law- ever.

You still can't kill your children and say the Bible says it is okay- the First Amendment doesn't exempt Christians from the law.


----------



## 80zephyr

EverCurious said:


> I think the respondents to the polls might be a little more selfish than I was as a child perhaps.
> 
> I was 5 when my folks split up as I said.



You are among the rarest of the rare. I was lucky, I didn't know many kids from divorced households when I was growing up. The ones I did know suffered mightily from it.

Mark


----------



## EverCurious

Did it occur to you that /your/ upbringing may be coloring the reality for others who did not share it?


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> I'll ask you, for the third time......how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?





Bob Blaylock said:


> Not denying marriage.  Denying an insane fraud.  There is no such thing as “same sex marriage”, and efforts to create it will never be equal to genuine marriage.



The physical structure of "gay marriage" is inappropriate for the previous reason marriage existed for thousands of years: to provide children with BOTH a mother and father...which the poll tells us (and yes, child psychologists too) are VITAL to a child's psychological well being statistically.  We make rules based on statistical preponderances, not outside rare exceptions.

And, we make rules to protect children also: Is Gay Marriage Void?  New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1st amendment doesn't mean that Christians or any religion can ignore every law. It never has. You're describing Christian Sharia, where any Christian can ignore any law they wish.
> 
> That's not our system or law.
> 
> 
> 
> Says who? If a conscientious Christian cant live his life according to his religion, then the 1st Amendment is less than worthless because he basically has to "drop out" of society, forcing him to become a second class citizen.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He can always move to another country then. The 1rst amendment doesnt stop you from being a christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't live your faith, then you aren't free to practice your religion. The 1st becomes nothing more than words.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> So if your faith tells you to stone an adulterer to death- and you are not allowed by law to do so- then you aren't free to practice your religion and that First Amendment mean nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that when the question of religion comes up that people insist on using stupid examples. Should religion be regulated?
> 
> YES.
> 
> If it causes harm to others.
> 
> Now, can we move on?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


You don't get it- it is not religion that is regulated- it is the behavior of human beings.

The Bible can say that adulterers should be stoned to death- and the First Amendment says that you still have the right to read the Bible- and even believe what it says.

But your behavior is regulated by law- you can't stone someone to death and claim that is your right under the First Amendment.

No more than if you are a business in Oregon and you want to deny service to a mixed race or a gay couple.

Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.


----------



## Asclepias

80zephyr said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the respondents to the polls might be a little more selfish than I was as a child perhaps.
> 
> I was 5 when my folks split up as I said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are among the rarest of the rare. I was lucky, I didn't know many kids from divorced households when I was growing up. The ones I did know suffered mightily from it.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Maybe there was lot of misguided people like you around to make their lives miserable.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask you, for the third time......how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not denying marriage.  Denying an insane fraud.  There is no such thing as “same sex marriage”, and efforts to create it will never be equal to genuine marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The physical structure of "gay marriage" is inappropriate for the previous reason marriage existed for thousands of years: to provide children with BOTH a mother and father..
Click to expand...


And millions and millions of children are being raised without a mother or a father- they are called single parent households.

Why you believe that a child is worse off with two mothers- rather than one- is based purely upon your bigotry.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how the Muslims practice Sharia law? They don't allow other religions to practice theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, Marky.  Learn Islam...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marky has. That is why Marky made the statement.
> 
> Marky
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Marky obviously has not.  The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam
Click to expand...


Of course you're right. I mean, its why


Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says who? If a conscientious Christian cant live his life according to his religion, then the 1st Amendment is less than worthless because he basically has to "drop out" of society, forcing him to become a second class citizen.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> He can always move to another country then. The 1rst amendment doesnt stop you from being a christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't live your faith, then you aren't free to practice your religion. The 1st becomes nothing more than words.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> So if your faith tells you to stone an adulterer to death- and you are not allowed by law to do so- then you aren't free to practice your religion and that First Amendment mean nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that when the question of religion comes up that people insist on using stupid examples. Should religion be regulated?
> 
> YES.
> 
> If it causes harm to others.
> 
> Now, can we move on?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get it- it is not religion that is regulated- it is the behavior of human beings.
> 
> The Bible can say that adulterers should be stoned to death- and the First Amendment says that you still have the right to read the Bible- and even believe what it says.
> 
> But your behavior is regulated by law- you can't stone someone to death and claim that is your right under the First Amendment.
> 
> No more than if you are a business in Oregon and you want to deny service to a mixed race or a gay couple.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
Click to expand...


If the law is in direct conflict of religion, then it is illegal as per the Constitution. Its like saying you have the right to own firearms, and yet by law, no one can own them.

Mark


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask you, for the third time......how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not denying marriage.  Denying an insane fraud.  There is no such thing as “same sex marriage”, and efforts to create it will never be equal to genuine marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The physical structure of "gay marriage" is inappropriate for the previous reason marriage existed for thousands of years: to provide children with BOTH a mother and father...which the poll tells us (and yes, child psychologists too) are VITAL to a child's psychological well being statistically.  We make rules based on statistical preponderances, not outside rare exceptions.
> 
> And, we make rules to protect children also: Is Gay Marriage Void?  New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.
Click to expand...

Marriage has never been about children.

Example:  Two people want to get married.  They both have children.  The children say no.  The State says, And just who in the fuck do you think you?  End of debate on that one.


----------



## EverCurious

80zephyr said:


> If the law is in direct conflict of religion, then it is illegal as per the Constitution. Its like saying you have the right to own firearms, and yet by law, no one can own them.
> 
> Mark


Sooo when the Muslims get here in force, I can be raped because I don't believe in their religion?  Fuck that...


----------



## 80zephyr

EverCurious said:


> Did it occur to you that /your/ upbringing may be coloring the reality for others who did not share it?


It could have. But my reading verifies my beliefs. I read about a child psychologist that, after 30 years in practice, NEVER ONCE met a child from a broken home who didn't want his or her parents back together.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask you, for the third time......how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not denying marriage.  Denying an insane fraud.  There is no such thing as “same sex marriage”, and efforts to create it will never be equal to genuine marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The physical structure of "gay marriage" is inappropriate for the previous reason marriage existed for thousands of years: to provide children with BOTH a mother and father...which the poll tells us (and yes, child psychologists too) are VITAL to a child's psychological well being statistically.  We make rules based on statistical preponderances, not outside rare exceptions.
> 
> And, we make rules to protect children also: Is Gay Marriage Void?  New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage has never been about children...
Click to expand...


Isn't it amazing that, since its not about children, that this has never come up before? 

Mark


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason is simple: *denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children.* As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.
> 
> Which hurts those children and helps none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex.  Marriage, by definition, always has been, and will always be, between a man and a woman.
> 
> You do not help children by offering them a fraudulent mockery, and insisting that it is the same as the genuine thing that is being mocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Definitions change. Matter of fact gay used to mean happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, definitions do not change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They change all the time.  'Faggots' used to mean a bundle of sticks. 'Gay' used to mean happy. And legal definitions change regularly.
> 
> The idea that all definitions remain immutable and can never change is provably false.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> Why would I ignore the dictionary...and instead believe you? Why would any rational person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because rational people understand that you can call a turnip a rose, but its still not a rose.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

That's nice.


----------



## 80zephyr

EverCurious said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the law is in direct conflict of religion, then it is illegal as per the Constitution. Its like saying you have the right to own firearms, and yet by law, no one can own them.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo when the Muslims get here in force, I can be raped because I don't believe in their religion?  Fuck that...
Click to expand...


Lol. Pay attention. Religion should NOT BE restricted if it harms no one, or harms one party over another. 

Is that plain enough for you?

Mark


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask you, for the third time......how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not denying marriage.  Denying an insane fraud.  There is no such thing as “same sex marriage”, and efforts to create it will never be equal to genuine marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The physical structure of "gay marriage" is inappropriate for the previous reason marriage existed for thousands of years: to provide children with BOTH a mother and father...which the poll tells us (and yes, child psychologists too) are VITAL to a child's psychological well being statistically.  We make rules based on statistical preponderances, not outside rare exceptions.
> 
> And, we make rules to protect children also: Is Gay Marriage Void?  New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage has never been about children...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing that, since its not about children, that this has never come up before?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Your grasp of history is zero, Marky: History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex.  Marriage, by definition, always has been, and will always be, between a man and a woman.
> 
> You do not help children by offering them a fraudulent mockery, and insisting that it is the same as the genuine thing that is being mocked.
> 
> 
> 
> Definitions change. Matter of fact gay used to mean happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, definitions do not change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They change all the time.  'Faggots' used to mean a bundle of sticks. 'Gay' used to mean happy. And legal definitions change regularly.
> 
> The idea that all definitions remain immutable and can never change is provably false.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> Why would I ignore the dictionary...and instead believe you? Why would any rational person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because rational people understand that you can call a turnip a rose, but its still not a rose.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.
Click to expand...


Actually, its also logical, rational, and realistic.

Mark


----------



## EverCurious

80zephyr said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did it occur to you that /your/ upbringing may be coloring the reality for others who did not share it?
> 
> 
> 
> It could have. But my reading verifies my beliefs. I read about a child psychologist that, after 30 years in practice, NEVER ONCE met a child from a broken home who didn't want his or her parents back together.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


I think your child psychologist is lying....  Still in the interest of science I will ask my youngest if he wished Dad and I were together when he gets home from school.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did it occur to you that /your/ upbringing may be coloring the reality for others who did not share it?
> 
> 
> 
> It could have. But my reading verifies my beliefs. I read about a child psychologist that, after 30 years in practice, NEVER ONCE met a child from a broken home who didn't want his or her parents back together.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Last time I checked the Marriage License didn't read Bride - Groom, Child A through Z?


----------



## Uncensored2008

PaintMyHouse said:


> Nope.  Sharia law allows for other faiths.  Jews have been much safer under Muslims than the Christians many times.



Nope, you're lying.

Sharia allows for "people of the book" to live, as long as they accept a role as a Dhimmi and pay Jizya to ensure they remain in poverty.

As for Jews, it is not 1500 anymore. Once the Ottomans fell, Islam lost all restraint. Even Turkey is falling to the evil that is Islam.

Given your hatred of humanity, Islam is a natural fit for you.


----------



## EverCurious

80zephyr said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the law is in direct conflict of religion, then it is illegal as per the Constitution. Its like saying you have the right to own firearms, and yet by law, no one can own them.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo when the Muslims get here in force, I can be raped because I don't believe in their religion?  Fuck that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Pay attention. Religion should NOT BE restricted if it harms no one, or harms one party over another.
> 
> Is that plain enough for you?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


But making SSM illegal /DOES/ harm a party, the kids of the homosexual couple...  That was a big part of the foundation of the SOCUTS' findings.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask you, for the third time......how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not denying marriage.  Denying an insane fraud.  There is no such thing as “same sex marriage”, and efforts to create it will never be equal to genuine marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The physical structure of "gay marriage" is inappropriate for the previous reason marriage existed for thousands of years: to provide children with BOTH a mother and father...which the poll tells us (and yes, child psychologists too) are VITAL to a child's psychological well being statistically.  We make rules based on statistical preponderances, not outside rare exceptions.
Click to expand...


Says the soul that is using a straw poll on a message board as indicative of the national opinion on a matter.

Your 'solution' of denying marriage to gays doesn't remedy any of the 'problems' you've cited. As unmarried same sex parents are still same sex parents. Denying them marriage doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents. 

Which hurts children by the 10s of thousands and helps no child. 

Worse for you, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the right to marry isn't connected with children. If you can't have children or refuse to.....you can still have kids. Killing your argument again.

The Supreme Court has ruled on this matter specifically: denying same sex marriage hurts children. Recognizing same sex marriage helps children.

Your 'legal argument' is to ignore the Supreme Court's explicit findings and make up your own. And you keep wondering why your imagination isn't accepted as the law.

Get used to being confused.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how the Muslims practice Sharia law? They don't allow other religions to practice theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, Marky.  Learn Islam...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marky has. That is why Marky made the statement.
> 
> Marky
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Marky obviously has not.  The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you're right. I mean, its why
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> He can always move to another country then. The 1rst amendment doesnt stop you from being a christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't live your faith, then you aren't free to practice your religion. The 1st becomes nothing more than words.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> So if your faith tells you to stone an adulterer to death- and you are not allowed by law to do so- then you aren't free to practice your religion and that First Amendment mean nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that when the question of religion comes up that people insist on using stupid examples. Should religion be regulated?
> 
> YES.
> 
> If it causes harm to others.
> 
> Now, can we move on?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get it- it is not religion that is regulated- it is the behavior of human beings.
> 
> The Bible can say that adulterers should be stoned to death- and the First Amendment says that you still have the right to read the Bible- and even believe what it says.
> 
> But your behavior is regulated by law- you can't stone someone to death and claim that is your right under the First Amendment.
> 
> No more than if you are a business in Oregon and you want to deny service to a mixed race or a gay couple.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the law is in direct conflict of religion, then it is illegal as per the Constitution.
Click to expand...


So if your religion says that you must stone adulterers to death, if you are convicted of murder- you believe that violates the Constitution?


----------



## bodecea

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the, Wish I'd missed out on this hell on earth option?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the closet in the guise of a rope.
> 
> I'm just sayin....
Click to expand...

How's that Erotic Asphyxiation working out for you?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Hey Marky, I have History and Sharia Law on my side.  What you got?  Oh right, nothin'...

FYI, for those who care: History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Silhouette

80zephyr said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did it occur to you that /your/ upbringing may be coloring the reality for others who did not share it?
> 
> 
> 
> It could have. But my reading verifies my beliefs. I read about a child psychologist that, after 30 years in practice, NEVER ONCE met a child from a broken home who didn't want his or her parents back together.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...




EverCurious said:


> I think your child psychologist is lying....  Still in the interest of science I will ask my youngest if he wished Dad and I were together when he gets home from school.


Ask him instead if he wants NO father in his life.  We'll wait for your answer when he gets home..


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask you, for the third time......how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not denying marriage.  Denying an insane fraud.  There is no such thing as “same sex marriage”, and efforts to create it will never be equal to genuine marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The physical structure of "gay marriage" is inappropriate for the previous reason marriage existed for thousands of years: to provide children with BOTH a mother and father...which the poll tells us (and yes, child psychologists too) are VITAL to a child's psychological well being statistically.  We make rules based on statistical preponderances, not outside rare exceptions.
> 
> And, we make rules to protect children also: Is Gay Marriage Void?  New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage has never been about children...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing that, since its not about children, that this has never come up before?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your grasp of history is zero, Marky: History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


We are talking modern times here, Cosmo. The world also has an extensive history(even more so than homosexuality) of pederasty and pedophilia.


You're not suggesting...

Mark


----------



## Silhouette

PaintMyHouse said:


> Last time I checked the Marriage License didn't read Bride - Groom, Child A through Z?


You should study "implicit parties to a contract" in contract law paint.  Implicit parties are equally potent parties to expressed parties in a contract.  Go ahead for the readers here...argue that children aren't the reason for and part of marriage...


----------



## Uncensored2008

bodecea said:


> How's that Erotic Asphyxiation working out for you?



And a reminder why you're known as "shortbus...'


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask you, for the third time......how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not denying marriage.  Denying an insane fraud.  There is no such thing as “same sex marriage”, and efforts to create it will never be equal to genuine marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The physical structure of "gay marriage" is inappropriate for the previous reason marriage existed for thousands of years: to provide children with BOTH a mother and father...which the poll tells us (and yes, child psychologists too) are VITAL to a child's psychological well being statistically.  We make rules based on statistical preponderances, not outside rare exceptions.
> 
> And, we make rules to protect children also: Is Gay Marriage Void?  New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage has never been about children...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing that, since its not about children, that this has never come up before?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your grasp of history is zero, Marky: History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are talking modern times here, Cosmo. The world also has an extensive history(even more so than homosexuality) of pederasty and pedophilia.
> 
> 
> You're not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Ah, so if it didn't happen since Marky was born, it's of no impotence.  Got it, the thinking of an infant.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how the Muslims practice Sharia law? They don't allow other religions to practice theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, Marky.  Learn Islam...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marky has. That is why Marky made the statement.
> 
> Marky
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Marky obviously has not.  The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you're right. I mean, its why
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> He can always move to another country then. The 1rst amendment doesnt stop you from being a christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't live your faith, then you aren't free to practice your religion. The 1st becomes nothing more than words.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> So if your faith tells you to stone an adulterer to death- and you are not allowed by law to do so- then you aren't free to practice your religion and that First Amendment mean nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that when the question of religion comes up that people insist on using stupid examples. Should religion be regulated?
> 
> YES.
> 
> If it causes harm to others.
> 
> Now, can we move on?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get it- it is not religion that is regulated- it is the behavior of human beings.
> 
> The Bible can say that adulterers should be stoned to death- and the First Amendment says that you still have the right to read the Bible- and even believe what it says.
> 
> But your behavior is regulated by law- you can't stone someone to death and claim that is your right under the First Amendment.
> 
> No more than if you are a business in Oregon and you want to deny service to a mixed race or a gay couple.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If the law is in direct conflict of religion, then it is illegal as per the Constitution. *Its like saying you have the right to own firearms, and yet by law, no one can own them.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Fascinating.......there's our christian sharia believer, right there.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask you, for the third time......how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not denying marriage.  Denying an insane fraud.  There is no such thing as “same sex marriage”, and efforts to create it will never be equal to genuine marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The physical structure of "gay marriage" is inappropriate for the previous reason marriage existed for thousands of years: to provide children with BOTH a mother and father...which the poll tells us (and yes, child psychologists too) are VITAL to a child's psychological well being statistically.  We make rules based on statistical preponderances, not outside rare exceptions.
> 
> And, we make rules to protect children also: Is Gay Marriage Void?  New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage has never been about children...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing that, since its not about children, that this has never come up before?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Oh people have made the same kind of stupid claims you have made before.

Virginia actually argued that its law against mixed race marriages was to protect children- and they cited an 'authority' who had written a book about how the children of mixed race couples suffered- the courts rejected that argument.

As it has all of these 'arguments'- noting among other things that States not only allow infertile couples to marry- they actually require some couples to prove that they are unable to bear children before the States will allow them to marry.


----------



## bodecea

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's that Erotic Asphyxiation working out for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And a reminder why you're known as "shortbus...'
Click to expand...

I notice you didn't answer my question.    Preparing for another ....   "session"?   Be careful.   Think of David Carradine.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked the Marriage License didn't read Bride - Groom, Child A through Z?
> 
> 
> 
> You should study "implicit parties to a contract" in contract law paint.  Implicit parties are equally potent parties to expressed parties in a contract.  Go ahead for the readers here...argue that children aren't the reason for and part of marriage...
Click to expand...

Do tell, how many children have been allowed to stop their parents from getting a divorce?

As a counterpoint, how many have been allowed to stop their parents from getting married?


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> The physical structure of "gay marriage" is inappropriate for the previous reason marriage existed for thousands of years: to provide children with BOTH a mother and father...which the poll tells us (and yes, child psychologists too) are VITAL to a child's psychological well being statistically.  We make rules based on statistical preponderances, not outside rare exceptions.
> 
> And, we make rules to protect children also: Is Gay Marriage Void?  New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage has never been about children...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing that, since its not about children, that this has never come up before?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your grasp of history is zero, Marky: History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are talking modern times here, Cosmo. The world also has an extensive history(even more so than homosexuality) of pederasty and pedophilia.
> 
> 
> You're not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, so if it didn't happen since Marky was born, it's of no impotence.  Got it, the thinking of an infant.
Click to expand...



Ah, distraction. I told you of other things allowed during our history, why are you not defending them?

Looks like this "infant" got the best of you. 

Mark


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask you, for the third time......how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not denying marriage.  Denying an insane fraud.  There is no such thing as “same sex marriage”, and efforts to create it will never be equal to genuine marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The physical structure of "gay marriage" is inappropriate for the previous reason marriage existed for thousands of years: to provide children with BOTH a mother and father...which the poll tells us (and yes, child psychologists too) are VITAL to a child's psychological well being statistically.  We make rules based on statistical preponderances, not outside rare exceptions.
> 
> And, we make rules to protect children also: Is Gay Marriage Void?  New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage has never been about children...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing that, since its not about children, that this has never come up before?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your grasp of history is zero, Marky: History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are talking modern times here, Cosmo. The world also has an extensive history(even more so than homosexuality) of pederasty and pedophilia.
> 
> 
> You're not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Well, you can't tell the difference?


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how the Muslims practice Sharia law? They don't allow other religions to practice theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, Marky.  Learn Islam...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marky has. That is why Marky made the statement.
> 
> Marky
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Marky obviously has not.  The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you're right. I mean, its why
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't live your faith, then you aren't free to practice your religion. The 1st becomes nothing more than words.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> So if your faith tells you to stone an adulterer to death- and you are not allowed by law to do so- then you aren't free to practice your religion and that First Amendment mean nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that when the question of religion comes up that people insist on using stupid examples. Should religion be regulated?
> 
> YES.
> 
> If it causes harm to others.
> 
> Now, can we move on?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get it- it is not religion that is regulated- it is the behavior of human beings.
> 
> The Bible can say that adulterers should be stoned to death- and the First Amendment says that you still have the right to read the Bible- and even believe what it says.
> 
> But your behavior is regulated by law- you can't stone someone to death and claim that is your right under the First Amendment.
> 
> No more than if you are a business in Oregon and you want to deny service to a mixed race or a gay couple.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If the law is in direct conflict of religion, then it is illegal as per the Constitution. *Its like saying you have the right to own firearms, and yet by law, no one can own them.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascinating.......there's our christian sharia believer, right there.
Click to expand...


If by practicing your religion you hurt no one, then yes, you can bet your ass it is unconstitutional.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> The physical structure of "gay marriage" is inappropriate for the previous reason marriage existed for thousands of years: to provide children with BOTH a mother and father...which the poll tells us (and yes, child psychologists too) are VITAL to a child's psychological well being statistically.  We make rules based on statistical preponderances, not outside rare exceptions.
> 
> And, we make rules to protect children also: Is Gay Marriage Void?  New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage has never been about children...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing that, since its not about children, that this has never come up before?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your grasp of history is zero, Marky: History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are talking modern times here, Cosmo. The world also has an extensive history(even more so than homosexuality) of pederasty and pedophilia.
> 
> 
> You're not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you can't tell the difference?
Click to expand...

Tell what difference?

Mark


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked the Marriage License didn't read Bride - Groom, Child A through Z?
> 
> 
> 
> You should study "implicit parties to a contract" in contract law paint.
Click to expand...


And yet in all of your 'study', you've never found a single legal source that recognizes that a marriage of parents creates a minor contract for their children. Or that a child is married to their parents. 

In both cases, that's just you offering us your pseudo-legal gibberish as the law. Which is legally meaningless. As no court nor law recognizes any of your nonsense as valid. 

This is why your legal predictions are *always* wrong: you keep citing your imagination while ignoring the actual law.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, Marky.  Learn Islam...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marky has. That is why Marky made the statement.
> 
> Marky
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Marky obviously has not.  The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you're right. I mean, its why
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> So if your faith tells you to stone an adulterer to death- and you are not allowed by law to do so- then you aren't free to practice your religion and that First Amendment mean nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that when the question of religion comes up that people insist on using stupid examples. Should religion be regulated?
> 
> YES.
> 
> If it causes harm to others.
> 
> Now, can we move on?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get it- it is not religion that is regulated- it is the behavior of human beings.
> 
> The Bible can say that adulterers should be stoned to death- and the First Amendment says that you still have the right to read the Bible- and even believe what it says.
> 
> But your behavior is regulated by law- you can't stone someone to death and claim that is your right under the First Amendment.
> 
> No more than if you are a business in Oregon and you want to deny service to a mixed race or a gay couple.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If the law is in direct conflict of religion, then it is illegal as per the Constitution. *Its like saying you have the right to own firearms, and yet by law, no one can own them.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascinating.......there's our christian sharia believer, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If by practicing your religion you hurt no one, then yes, you can bet your ass it is unconstitutional.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Ah...moving the goal posts.    Of course if you are hurting no one, you are free to practice your religion....who has said otherwise?


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage has never been about children...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing that, since its not about children, that this has never come up before?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your grasp of history is zero, Marky: History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are talking modern times here, Cosmo. The world also has an extensive history(even more so than homosexuality) of pederasty and pedophilia.
> 
> 
> You're not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you can't tell the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell what difference?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

See?   You cannot tell the difference between homosexuality and pederasty and pedophilia.


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, Marky.  Learn Islam...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marky has. That is why Marky made the statement.
> 
> Marky
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Marky obviously has not.  The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you're right. I mean, its why
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> So if your faith tells you to stone an adulterer to death- and you are not allowed by law to do so- then you aren't free to practice your religion and that First Amendment mean nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that when the question of religion comes up that people insist on using stupid examples. Should religion be regulated?
> 
> YES.
> 
> If it causes harm to others.
> 
> Now, can we move on?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get it- it is not religion that is regulated- it is the behavior of human beings.
> 
> The Bible can say that adulterers should be stoned to death- and the First Amendment says that you still have the right to read the Bible- and even believe what it says.
> 
> But your behavior is regulated by law- you can't stone someone to death and claim that is your right under the First Amendment.
> 
> No more than if you are a business in Oregon and you want to deny service to a mixed race or a gay couple.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If the law is in direct conflict of religion, then it is illegal as per the Constitution. *Its like saying you have the right to own firearms, and yet by law, no one can own them.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascinating.......there's our christian sharia believer, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If by practicing your religion you hurt no one, then yes, you can bet your ass it is unconstitutional.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


So all civil law is insubordinate to Islam......as long as it doesn't explicitly hurt anyone. 

If your religion forbids you from paying taxes, does that mean you don't have to pay?


----------



## Uncensored2008

bodecea said:


> Fascinating.......there's our christian sharia believer, right there.



Are you drunk?

Or do you really have no fucking idea what the word you use mean?


----------



## Skylar

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing that, since its not about children, that this has never come up before?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Your grasp of history is zero, Marky: History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are talking modern times here, Cosmo. The world also has an extensive history(even more so than homosexuality) of pederasty and pedophilia.
> 
> 
> You're not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you can't tell the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell what difference?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See?   You cannot tell the difference between homosexuality and pederasty and pedophilia.
Click to expand...


Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.

And that, Zephyr...is why we don't use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marky has. That is why Marky made the statement.
> 
> Marky
> 
> 
> 
> No, Marky obviously has not.  The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you're right. I mean, its why
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that when the question of religion comes up that people insist on using stupid examples. Should religion be regulated?
> 
> YES.
> 
> If it causes harm to others.
> 
> Now, can we move on?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get it- it is not religion that is regulated- it is the behavior of human beings.
> 
> The Bible can say that adulterers should be stoned to death- and the First Amendment says that you still have the right to read the Bible- and even believe what it says.
> 
> But your behavior is regulated by law- you can't stone someone to death and claim that is your right under the First Amendment.
> 
> No more than if you are a business in Oregon and you want to deny service to a mixed race or a gay couple.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If the law is in direct conflict of religion, then it is illegal as per the Constitution. *Its like saying you have the right to own firearms, and yet by law, no one can own them.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascinating.......there's our christian sharia believer, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If by practicing your religion you hurt no one, then yes, you can bet your ass it is unconstitutional.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah...moving the goal posts.    Of course if you are hurting no one, you are free to practice your religion....who has said otherwise?
Click to expand...


I never moved the goalposts. I simply responded to the "crazies"  that harm can be controlled legally. Who has said otherwise? Anyone ho says the baker has to bake a cake.

Mark


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Marky obviously has not.  The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you're right. I mean, its why
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get it- it is not religion that is regulated- it is the behavior of human beings.
> 
> The Bible can say that adulterers should be stoned to death- and the First Amendment says that you still have the right to read the Bible- and even believe what it says.
> 
> But your behavior is regulated by law- you can't stone someone to death and claim that is your right under the First Amendment.
> 
> No more than if you are a business in Oregon and you want to deny service to a mixed race or a gay couple.
> 
> Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If the law is in direct conflict of religion, then it is illegal as per the Constitution. *Its like saying you have the right to own firearms, and yet by law, no one can own them.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascinating.......there's our christian sharia believer, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If by practicing your religion you hurt no one, then yes, you can bet your ass it is unconstitutional.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah...moving the goal posts.    Of course if you are hurting no one, you are free to practice your religion....who has said otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never moved the goalposts. I simply responded to the "crazies"  that harm can be controlled legally. Who has said otherwise? Anyone ho says the baker has to bake a cake.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


You've certainly added enormous caveats that weren't in your argument before. 

And you never did answer my questions: Is all of US law subordinate and subservient to Islam......unless someone is explicitly hurt? 

And if your religion mandates that you don't pay taxes, does that mean you don't have to pay taxes?


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your grasp of history is zero, Marky: History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking modern times here, Cosmo. The world also has an extensive history(even more so than homosexuality) of pederasty and pedophilia.
> 
> 
> You're not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you can't tell the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell what difference?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See?   You cannot tell the difference between homosexuality and pederasty and pedophilia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.
> 
> And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.
Click to expand...

In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you're right. I mean, its why
> *If the law is in direct conflict of religion, then it is illegal as per the Constitution. *Its like saying you have the right to own firearms, and yet by law, no one can own them.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating.......there's our christian sharia believer, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If by practicing your religion you hurt no one, then yes, you can bet your ass it is unconstitutional.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah...moving the goal posts.    Of course if you are hurting no one, you are free to practice your religion....who has said otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never moved the goalposts. I simply responded to the "crazies"  that harm can be controlled legally. Who has said otherwise? Anyone ho says the baker has to bake a cake.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've certainly added enormous caveats that weren't in your argument before.
> 
> And you never did answer my questions: Is all of US law subordinate and subservient to Islam......unless someone is explicitly hurt?
> 
> And if your religion mandates that you don't pay taxes, does that mean you don't have to pay taxes?
Click to expand...


I've added caveats as the debate unfolded, just like everyone else here. I would not have responded to the "harm" argument unless it was raised.

Based on my belief, you should be able to answer those questions yourself. If I don't pay taxes, will it cause harm?

Mark


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking modern times here, Cosmo. The world also has an extensive history(even more so than homosexuality) of pederasty and pedophilia.
> 
> 
> You're not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you can't tell the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell what difference?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See?   You cannot tell the difference between homosexuality and pederasty and pedophilia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.
> 
> And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense. 

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)

Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?

Why would any rational person?


----------



## Carla_Danger

mdk said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those two gay men are going to sit the little baby girl (was she born out of one of their anuses?) down when she's a preteen and discuss with her all the nuances of menstruation?  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow- you are describing the exact situation of every single dad out there. I guess every daughter being raised by a single dad is being abused by your 'logic'
> 
> And exactly what biology book is teaching you that babies come out of anuses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or anyone who has ever adopted a girl. Remember, Sil's made up the 'nuances of her unique genetic line' argument.
> 
> By sil's own standards......adoptive parents can never marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What truly makes a good parent is knowing the nuanced menstruation cycle history of the women in the adopted child's previous family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I talk to my mother on the phone every day, and I do not know the history of her menstruation cycle. I guess I better call her. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your mother at least provided you with the _hope_ of knowing these cycles. lol.
> 
> We need more poll options:
> 
> I was raised by a mother and father but they never discussed the period cycles of Nanny Mary.
Click to expand...



The only reason my daughter knows about my history is because of that one road rage incident.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage has never been about children...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing that, since its not about children, that this has never come up before?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your grasp of history is zero, Marky: History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are talking modern times here, Cosmo. The world also has an extensive history(even more so than homosexuality) of pederasty and pedophilia.
> 
> 
> You're not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, so if it didn't happen since Marky was born, it's of no impotence.  Got it, the thinking of an infant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, distraction. I told you of other things allowed during our history, why are you not defending them?
> 
> Looks like this "infant" got the best of you.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

The infant, Marky, doesn't know Islam then or now, obviously.


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating.......there's our christian sharia believer, right there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If by practicing your religion you hurt no one, then yes, you can bet your ass it is unconstitutional.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah...moving the goal posts.    Of course if you are hurting no one, you are free to practice your religion....who has said otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never moved the goalposts. I simply responded to the "crazies"  that harm can be controlled legally. Who has said otherwise? Anyone ho says the baker has to bake a cake.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've certainly added enormous caveats that weren't in your argument before.
> 
> And you never did answer my questions: Is all of US law subordinate and subservient to Islam......unless someone is explicitly hurt?
> 
> And if your religion mandates that you don't pay taxes, does that mean you don't have to pay taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've added caveats as the debate unfolded, just like everyone else here. I would not have responded to the "harm" argument unless it was raised.
Click to expand...


You started with any restriction to the practice of religion being a violation of the constition....and have winnowed that down to a litany of exceptions, caveats and excuses for why you didn't actually mean 'any'.

We call that a 'backpedal'.



> Based on my belief, you should be able to answer those questions yourself. If I don't pay taxes, will it cause harm?
> 
> Mark



Why don't you tell me what you believe about paying taxes if you don't believe you should have to rather than asking me to guess.

You're stalling. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you can't tell the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> Tell what difference?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See?   You cannot tell the difference between homosexuality and pederasty and pedophilia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.
> 
> And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)
> 
> Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?
> 
> Why would any rational person?
Click to expand...


Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer. 

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing that, since its not about children, that this has never come up before?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Your grasp of history is zero, Marky: History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are talking modern times here, Cosmo. The world also has an extensive history(even more so than homosexuality) of pederasty and pedophilia.
> 
> 
> You're not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, so if it didn't happen since Marky was born, it's of no impotence.  Got it, the thinking of an infant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, distraction. I told you of other things allowed during our history, why are you not defending them?
> 
> Looks like this "infant" got the best of you.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The infant, Marky, doesn't know Islam then or now, obviously.
Click to expand...


Lol. Tell you what Paint, why don't you mosey on over to the middle East, then report back to me to show me how tolerant they are?

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> If by practicing your religion you hurt no one, then yes, you can bet your ass it is unconstitutional.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Ah...moving the goal posts.    Of course if you are hurting no one, you are free to practice your religion....who has said otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never moved the goalposts. I simply responded to the "crazies"  that harm can be controlled legally. Who has said otherwise? Anyone ho says the baker has to bake a cake.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've certainly added enormous caveats that weren't in your argument before.
> 
> And you never did answer my questions: Is all of US law subordinate and subservient to Islam......unless someone is explicitly hurt?
> 
> And if your religion mandates that you don't pay taxes, does that mean you don't have to pay taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've added caveats as the debate unfolded, just like everyone else here. I would not have responded to the "harm" argument unless it was raised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You started with any restriction to the practice of religion being a violation of the constition....and have winnowed that down to a litany of exceptions, caveats and excuses for why you didn't actually mean 'any'.
> 
> We call that a 'backpedal'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on my belief, you should be able to answer those questions yourself. If I don't pay taxes, will it cause harm?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you tell me what you believe about paying taxes if you don't believe you should have to rather than asking me to guess.
> 
> You're stalling. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to.
Click to expand...


I am not accustomed to writing a book when making a point. Anyone who seriously believes that a person who calls for freedom of religion would also include murder, might not be worth the time debating.

Hmm. Would it harm society if I didn't pay my taxes? 

Mark


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your grasp of history is zero, Marky: History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking modern times here, Cosmo. The world also has an extensive history(even more so than homosexuality) of pederasty and pedophilia.
> 
> 
> You're not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, so if it didn't happen since Marky was born, it's of no impotence.  Got it, the thinking of an infant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, distraction. I told you of other things allowed during our history, why are you not defending them?
> 
> Looks like this "infant" got the best of you.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The infant, Marky, doesn't know Islam then or now, obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Tell you what Paint, why don't you mosey on over to the middle East, then report back to me to show me how tolerant they are?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Not a problem, nor does it matter since Sharia law allows for other faiths which means, Marky is wrong, again.


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell what difference?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> See?   You cannot tell the difference between homosexuality and pederasty and pedophilia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.
> 
> And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)
> 
> Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?
> 
> Why would any rational person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never.
Click to expand...


You did, however, say that definitions do not change. Exactly as I said you did (bold added for emphasis);



80zephyr said:


> *No, definitions do not change. *Stupid people tell us they change. We now have "definitions" that tell us a man is a woman, a white is a black, and a middle aged man is really a six year old girl.



And as the dictionary and the changing legal definitions of the US code demonstrate elegantly, definitions do change.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)

Why when would I ignore the dictionary on the meaning of words....and instead believe you? Or ignore the law on the meanig of the law? Or the Supreme Courts on the meaning of the constitution?

Remember, you can't even accurately cite *yourself*. Why then would any rational person accept you as an infallible arbiter of, well....anything?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell what difference?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> See?   You cannot tell the difference between homosexuality and pederasty and pedophilia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.
> 
> And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)
> 
> Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?
> 
> Why would any rational person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

And what, exactly, is said "bonding", Marky?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> See?   You cannot tell the difference between homosexuality and pederasty and pedophilia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.
> 
> And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)
> 
> Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?
> 
> Why would any rational person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did, however, say that definitions do not change. Exactly as I said you did (bold added for emphasis);
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No, definitions do not change. *Stupid people tell us they change. We now have "definitions" that tell us a man is a woman, a white is a black, and a middle aged man is really a six year old girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as the dictionary and the changing legal definitions of the US code demonstrate elegantly, definitions do change.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)
> 
> Why when would I ignore the dictionary on the meaning of words....and instead believe you? Or ignore the law on the meanig of the law? Or the Supreme Courts on the meaning of the constitution?
> 
> Remember, you can't even accurately cite *yourself*. Why then would any rational person accept you as an infallible arbiter of, well....anything?
Click to expand...

Poor Marky can't see to figure out what he's saying about anything.  Maybe he needs a time-out?


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking modern times here, Cosmo. The world also has an extensive history(even more so than homosexuality) of pederasty and pedophilia.
> 
> 
> You're not suggesting...
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so if it didn't happen since Marky was born, it's of no impotence.  Got it, the thinking of an infant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, distraction. I told you of other things allowed during our history, why are you not defending them?
> 
> Looks like this "infant" got the best of you.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The infant, Marky, doesn't know Islam then or now, obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Tell you what Paint, why don't you mosey on over to the middle East, then report back to me to show me how tolerant they are?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a problem, nor does it matter since Sharia law allows for other faiths which means, Marky is wrong, again.
Click to expand...


Lol. Your "link" was like a link to the Catholic church. Full of bullshit. 

Here, read and learn about their "tolerance".

Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia

Mark


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah...moving the goal posts.    Of course if you are hurting no one, you are free to practice your religion....who has said otherwise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never moved the goalposts. I simply responded to the "crazies"  that harm can be controlled legally. Who has said otherwise? Anyone ho says the baker has to bake a cake.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've certainly added enormous caveats that weren't in your argument before.
> 
> And you never did answer my questions: Is all of US law subordinate and subservient to Islam......unless someone is explicitly hurt?
> 
> And if your religion mandates that you don't pay taxes, does that mean you don't have to pay taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've added caveats as the debate unfolded, just like everyone else here. I would not have responded to the "harm" argument unless it was raised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You started with any restriction to the practice of religion being a violation of the constition....and have winnowed that down to a litany of exceptions, caveats and excuses for why you didn't actually mean 'any'.
> 
> We call that a 'backpedal'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on my belief, you should be able to answer those questions yourself. If I don't pay taxes, will it cause harm?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you tell me what you believe about paying taxes if you don't believe you should have to rather than asking me to guess.
> 
> You're stalling. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not accustomed to writing a book when making a point. Anyone who seriously believes that a person who calls for freedom of religion would also include murder, might not be worth the time debating.
> 
> Hmm. Would it harm society if I didn't pay my taxes?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


And yet rather than answering my question, you're on post number 2 giving me excuses why you won't. 

You're stalling. If your argument had merit, you could answer clearly and openly:

*If your religion forbids you from paying taxes, does that mean you don't have to pay them?*

Third times a charm?


----------



## EverCurious

I too am curious about this "bonding" restriction.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so if it didn't happen since Marky was born, it's of no impotence.  Got it, the thinking of an infant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, distraction. I told you of other things allowed during our history, why are you not defending them?
> 
> Looks like this "infant" got the best of you.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The infant, Marky, doesn't know Islam then or now, obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Tell you what Paint, why don't you mosey on over to the middle East, then report back to me to show me how tolerant they are?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a problem, nor does it matter since Sharia law allows for other faiths which means, Marky is wrong, again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Your "link" was like a link to the Catholic church. Full of bullshit.
> 
> Here, read and learn about their "tolerance".
> 
> Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Try again, Marky.  My source are Muslims: The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam

And history: History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so if it didn't happen since Marky was born, it's of no impotence.  Got it, the thinking of an infant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, distraction. I told you of other things allowed during our history, why are you not defending them?
> 
> Looks like this "infant" got the best of you.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The infant, Marky, doesn't know Islam then or now, obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Tell you what Paint, why don't you mosey on over to the middle East, then report back to me to show me how tolerant they are?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a problem, nor does it matter since Sharia law allows for other faiths which means, Marky is wrong, again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Your "link" was like a link to the Catholic church. Full of bullshit.
> 
> Here, read and learn about their "tolerance".
> 
> Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


'Full of bullshit' according to who? Your entire argument has devolved into insisting that you and only you get to define words, entire religions, the law or the constitution.

But you don't exclusively or authoritatively define any of those things. As the dictionary and 50 of 50 States recognizing same sex marriage demonstrate elegantly.

Remember, just because you ignore reality and pretend it doesn't exist....doesn't mean we're obligated to pretend with you.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> See?   You cannot tell the difference between homosexuality and pederasty and pedophilia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.
> 
> And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)
> 
> Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?
> 
> Why would any rational person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what, exactly, is said "bonding", Marky?
Click to expand...


Intercourse. Its why when marriages weren't consummated, they could be dissolved.

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell what difference?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> See?   You cannot tell the difference between homosexuality and pederasty and pedophilia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.
> 
> And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)
> 
> Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?
> 
> Why would any rational person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


You are welcome to your opinion- legally- and linguistically- you are incorrect.


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, distraction. I told you of other things allowed during our history, why are you not defending them?
> 
> Looks like this "infant" got the best of you.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> The infant, Marky, doesn't know Islam then or now, obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Tell you what Paint, why don't you mosey on over to the middle East, then report back to me to show me how tolerant they are?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a problem, nor does it matter since Sharia law allows for other faiths which means, Marky is wrong, again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Your "link" was like a link to the Catholic church. Full of bullshit.
> 
> Here, read and learn about their "tolerance".
> 
> Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try again, Marky.  My source are Muslims: The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam
> 
> And history: History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


My link talks about reality. Yours talks about bullshit. But, you already knew that.

Mark


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> The infant, Marky, doesn't know Islam then or now, obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Tell you what Paint, why don't you mosey on over to the middle East, then report back to me to show me how tolerant they are?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a problem, nor does it matter since Sharia law allows for other faiths which means, Marky is wrong, again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Your "link" was like a link to the Catholic church. Full of bullshit.
> 
> Here, read and learn about their "tolerance".
> 
> Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try again, Marky.  My source are Muslims: The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam
> 
> And history: History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My link talks about reality. Yours talks about bullshit. But, you already knew that.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Says you, citing yourself. But you insist that definitions don't change and ignore the dictionary. So clearly you citing you is inadequate to carry your argument.

Do you have anything beyond insisting that you are an infallible arbiter? Because if that's the extent of your argument, you've already proven yourself wrong.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> See?   You cannot tell the difference between homosexuality and pederasty and pedophilia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.
> 
> And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)
> 
> Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?
> 
> Why would any rational person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome to your opinion- legally- and linguistically- you are incorrect.
Click to expand...


My opinion has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. In law, the consummation of a marriage is considered part of the marriage. Gays cannot consummate a marriage. Therefore, there can be no marriage. Now, "we the people" can lie about it, and say there is, but in the back of our minds we understand that we hold a position that is logically impossible to hold.

Its a lot like the Orwell quotes. "War is peace" "Ignorance is knowledge"

IOW's the sheeple will believe anything.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Tell you what Paint, why don't you mosey on over to the middle East, then report back to me to show me how tolerant they are?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Not a problem, nor does it matter since Sharia law allows for other faiths which means, Marky is wrong, again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Your "link" was like a link to the Catholic church. Full of bullshit.
> 
> Here, read and learn about their "tolerance".
> 
> Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try again, Marky.  My source are Muslims: The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam
> 
> And history: History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My link talks about reality. Yours talks about bullshit. But, you already knew that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, citing yourself. But you insist that definitions don't change and ignore the dictionary. So clearly you citing you is inadequate to carry your argument.
> 
> Do you have anything beyond insisting that you are an infallible arbiter? Because if that's the extent of your argument, you've already proven yourself wrong.
Click to expand...


You are putting words in my mouth. If you want to debate, do so rationally.

Mark


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.
> 
> And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)
> 
> Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?
> 
> Why would any rational person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome to your opinion- legally- and linguistically- you are incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My opinion has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. In law, the consummation of a marriage is considered part of the marriage. Gays cannot consummate a marriage. Therefore, there can be no marriage. Now, "we the people" can lie about it, and say there is, but in the back of our minds we understand that we hold a position that is logically impossible to hold.
Click to expand...


You're citing nothing but your opinion. And then insisting that your opinion must be reality. Every argument you've made is founded on this same, stupid fallacy.

Do you have anything to offer us save you insisting that you're an infallible arbiter of everything? Words, the constitution, religion, the law, anything you're discussing?

Because you can't even explain why I would ignore the dictionary and instead believe you. Let alone why any rational person would accept you as an infallible arbiter of...anything


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a problem, nor does it matter since Sharia law allows for other faiths which means, Marky is wrong, again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Your "link" was like a link to the Catholic church. Full of bullshit.
> 
> Here, read and learn about their "tolerance".
> 
> Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try again, Marky.  My source are Muslims: The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam
> 
> And history: History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My link talks about reality. Yours talks about bullshit. But, you already knew that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, citing yourself. But you insist that definitions don't change and ignore the dictionary. So clearly you citing you is inadequate to carry your argument.
> 
> Do you have anything beyond insisting that you are an infallible arbiter? Because if that's the extent of your argument, you've already proven yourself wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are putting words in my mouth. If you want to debate, do so rationally.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


You've insisted that definitions don't change. The dictionary contradicts you. So you ignore the dictionary and cling to your opinion.

Why would I or any rational person ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words.

Or ignore the Supreme Court on the Constitution. Or ignore the law on legal definitions? Or ignore any link on Islam save the one that you have deemed is 'reality'?

You've never been able to explain that.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.
> 
> And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)
> 
> Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?
> 
> Why would any rational person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome to your opinion- legally- and linguistically- you are incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My opinion has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. In law, the consummation of a marriage is considered part of the marriage.
Click to expand...


Feel free to cite those laws- here are some sites you can refer to- curiously which don't mention consummation.

Marriage laws

Meanwhile- couples who are unable to have sex- are completely able to legally marry. Quadrapalegics can marry. Even prisoners sentenced to life in prison can marry.


----------



## EverCurious

Well that's certainly a new one, I don't recall consummation ever being brought into a SSM debate before.  It's been a dead idea since at least the 70s, not even hard rights want it anymore...


----------



## Carla_Danger

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're free to believe that all you wish but you still can't stop gay people from raising their biological and adoptive children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A gay couple cannot have a biological child. I don't have to "stop them". Nature does that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay couples will just use the same avenue as infertile couples. You still can't do a thing about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Gay couples? No such thing. One(or the other) might get pregnant, but NOT as a couple. Like I said, I don't have to "do a thing" about it. Its already done.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says you. Again, your entire argument has degenerated into ignoring the law, the dictionary, the Supreme Court or anything you don't agree with...._and pretending it doesn't exist._
> 
> With same sex marriage legal in 50 of 50 States, how's that working out for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to pretend anything. Reality doesn't have to be explained. George Orwell was right, of course. The denial of reality like in the book 1984, is happening now. And the left will be the reason for our demise.
> *
> So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot.
> George Orwell*
> 
> And sadly, it is going to lead to this:
> *
> If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
> George Orwell*
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...




Yikes!


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.
> 
> And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)
> 
> Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?
> 
> Why would any rational person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what, exactly, is said "bonding", Marky?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intercourse. Its why when marriages weren't consummated, they could be dissolved.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Ah, so a male without a penis, say from  cancer, and a female can never be married?  Interesting.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

80zephyr said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> The infant, Marky, doesn't know Islam then or now, obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Tell you what Paint, why don't you mosey on over to the middle East, then report back to me to show me how tolerant they are?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a problem, nor does it matter since Sharia law allows for other faiths which means, Marky is wrong, again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Your "link" was like a link to the Catholic church. Full of bullshit.
> 
> Here, read and learn about their "tolerance".
> 
> Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try again, Marky.  My source are Muslims: The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam
> 
> And history: History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My link talks about reality. Yours talks about bullshit. But, you already knew that.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

I see, so Muslims and historians don't know Islam but little Marky Mark does?  Got it.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)
> 
> Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?
> 
> Why would any rational person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome to your opinion- legally- and linguistically- you are incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My opinion has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. In law, the consummation of a marriage is considered part of the marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to cite those laws- here are some sites you can refer to- curiously which don't mention consummation.
> 
> Marriage laws
> 
> Meanwhile- couples who are unable to have sex- are completely able to legally marry. Quadrapalegics can marry. Even prisoners sentenced to life in prison can marry.
Click to expand...

Marky must have learned both law and religion, while in the tub with his sister.


----------



## Bonzi

I had both in my life.
Both pretty incompetent in my opinion.

Mother was there for the long haul at least.
Dad got remarried.  Saw him a week during the summer, but, otherwise.  Nothing.  No calls.  No letters.

He died a few years back.  Got nothing in the way of inheritance which I really don't care about, because, honestly, biologically he was my father, but was not a Dad.  My step father was no better.


----------



## EverCurious

You raise a good point on that.  To his credit, and perhaps my also limited visitation, I never realized it, but my bio-father is a complete racist against Mexican's.  The last time I spoke to him, and in fact part of why I didn't bother to call him again, he and a "posse" had "run a Mexican family" out of town...


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.
> 
> And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)
> 
> Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?
> 
> Why would any rational person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome to your opinion- legally- and linguistically- you are incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *My opinion has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.* In law, the consummation of a marriage is considered part of the marriage. Gays cannot consummate a marriage. Therefore, there can be no marriage. Now, "we the people" can lie about it, and say there is, but in the back of our minds we understand that we hold a position that is logically impossible to hold.
> 
> Its a lot like the Orwell quotes. "War is peace" "Ignorance is knowledge"
> 
> IOW's the sheeple will believe anything.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

How very true you are in that statement.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)
> 
> Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?
> 
> Why would any rational person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome to your opinion- legally- and linguistically- you are incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My opinion has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. In law, the consummation of a marriage is considered part of the marriage. Gays cannot consummate a marriage. Therefore, there can be no marriage. Now, "we the people" can lie about it, and say there is, but in the back of our minds we understand that we hold a position that is logically impossible to hold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're citing nothing but your opinion. And then insisting that your opinion must be reality. Every argument you've made is founded on this same, stupid fallacy.
> 
> Do you have anything to offer us save you insisting that you're an infallible arbiter of everything? Words, the constitution, religion, the law, anything you're discussing?
> 
> Because you can't even explain why I would ignore the dictionary and instead believe you. Let alone why any rational person would accept you as an infallible arbiter of...anything
Click to expand...


You can accept reality...or not. I really don't care. But, the one thing you can't do is change reality. 

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)
> 
> Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?
> 
> Why would any rational person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome to your opinion- legally- and linguistically- you are incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *My opinion has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.* In law, the consummation of a marriage is considered part of the marriage. Gays cannot consummate a marriage. Therefore, there can be no marriage. Now, "we the people" can lie about it, and say there is, but in the back of our minds we understand that we hold a position that is logically impossible to hold.
> 
> Its a lot like the Orwell quotes. "War is peace" "Ignorance is knowledge"
> 
> IOW's the sheeple will believe anything.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How very true you are in that statement.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is true. How perceptive of you.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Your "link" was like a link to the Catholic church. Full of bullshit.
> 
> Here, read and learn about their "tolerance".
> 
> Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Try again, Marky.  My source are Muslims: The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam
> 
> And history: History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My link talks about reality. Yours talks about bullshit. But, you already knew that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, citing yourself. But you insist that definitions don't change and ignore the dictionary. So clearly you citing you is inadequate to carry your argument.
> 
> Do you have anything beyond insisting that you are an infallible arbiter? Because if that's the extent of your argument, you've already proven yourself wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are putting words in my mouth. If you want to debate, do so rationally.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've insisted that definitions don't change. The dictionary contradicts you. So you ignore the dictionary and cling to your opinion.
> 
> Why would I or any rational person ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words.
> 
> Or ignore the Supreme Court on the Constitution. Or ignore the law on legal definitions? Or ignore any link on Islam save the one that you have deemed is 'reality'?
> 
> You've never been able to explain that.
Click to expand...


I insisted no such thing. But, I will insist that the term "marriage" as being used today is incorrect,

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)
> 
> Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?
> 
> Why would any rational person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome to your opinion- legally- and linguistically- you are incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My opinion has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. In law, the consummation of a marriage is considered part of the marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to cite those laws- here are some sites you can refer to- curiously which don't mention consummation.
> 
> Marriage laws
> 
> Meanwhile- couples who are unable to have sex- are completely able to legally marry. Quadrapalegics can marry. Even prisoners sentenced to life in prison can marry.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are free to marry. who said they weren't? 

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)
> 
> Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?
> 
> Why would any rational person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what, exactly, is said "bonding", Marky?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intercourse. Its why when marriages weren't consummated, they could be dissolved.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, so a male without a penis, say from  cancer, and a female can never be married?  Interesting.
Click to expand...

Who said that?

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Tell you what Paint, why don't you mosey on over to the middle East, then report back to me to show me how tolerant they are?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Not a problem, nor does it matter since Sharia law allows for other faiths which means, Marky is wrong, again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Your "link" was like a link to the Catholic church. Full of bullshit.
> 
> Here, read and learn about their "tolerance".
> 
> Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try again, Marky.  My source are Muslims: The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam
> 
> And history: History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My link talks about reality. Yours talks about bullshit. But, you already knew that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see, so Muslims and historians don't know Islam but little Marky Mark does?  Got it.
Click to expand...


Yes, I do. Personally, I don't care what the historians and Muslims THINK. I will refer to how they LIVE for my evidence. 

I have given you a link. Believe what you will

Mark


----------



## Asclepias

I see Mark is still swinging wildly hoping to hit something.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Skylar said:


> The idea that all definitions remain immutable and can never change is provably false.



  I never claimed that.

  But marriage is what it is, and trying to redefine it to include that which it is not doesn't change marriage at all; it only makes fools of those who try to cling to the false definition.

  You cannot turn a paramecium into an elephant simply by trying to change the definitions of “paramecium” and “elephant”.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)
> 
> Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?
> 
> Why would any rational person?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome to your opinion- legally- and linguistically- you are incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My opinion has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. In law, the consummation of a marriage is considered part of the marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to cite those laws- here are some sites you can refer to- curiously which don't mention consummation.
> 
> Marriage laws
> 
> Meanwhile- couples who are unable to have sex- are completely able to legally marry. Quadrapalegics can marry. Even prisoners sentenced to life in prison can marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are free to marry. who said they weren't?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Here is your quote
_In law, the consummation of a marriage is considered part of the marriage._

As I pointed out- couples who are unable to participate in 'consummation of a marriage' are still not only able to get married- but are considered to be just as married- legally, morally, and socially.

And I will note- you were unable to cite any law to back up your claim. 

Once again- the reality at odds with your 'opinion'


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)
> 
> Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?
> 
> Why would any rational person?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome to your opinion- legally- and linguistically- you are incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My opinion has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. In law, the consummation of a marriage is considered part of the marriage. Gays cannot consummate a marriage. Therefore, there can be no marriage. Now, "we the people" can lie about it, and say there is, but in the back of our minds we understand that we hold a position that is logically impossible to hold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're citing nothing but your opinion. And then insisting that your opinion must be reality. Every argument you've made is founded on this same, stupid fallacy.
> 
> Do you have anything to offer us save you insisting that you're an infallible arbiter of everything? Words, the constitution, religion, the law, anything you're discussing?
> 
> Because you can't even explain why I would ignore the dictionary and instead believe you. Let alone why any rational person would accept you as an infallible arbiter of...anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can accept reality...or not. I really don't care. But, the one thing you can't do is change reality.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


The reality is that same gender couples can and do get legally married- and get married in churches- and get married in front of friends and family.

You can't accept reality- so you pretend that it doesn't exist.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that all definitions remain immutable and can never change is provably false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that.
> 
> But marriage is what it is, .
Click to expand...


Marriage is what it is.

Webster:

_the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife 
_
_: a similar relationship between people of the same sex
_
_ 
: a ceremony in which two people are married to each other_
Oxford English Dictionary
_The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:_

Marriage is what it is- and in the United States- both legally- and linguistically- it is a legally recognized union between two persons of either gender.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try again, Marky.  My source are Muslims: The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam
> 
> And history: History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My link talks about reality. Yours talks about bullshit. But, you already knew that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, citing yourself. But you insist that definitions don't change and ignore the dictionary. So clearly you citing you is inadequate to carry your argument.
> 
> Do you have anything beyond insisting that you are an infallible arbiter? Because if that's the extent of your argument, you've already proven yourself wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are putting words in my mouth. If you want to debate, do so rationally.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've insisted that definitions don't change. The dictionary contradicts you. So you ignore the dictionary and cling to your opinion.
> 
> Why would I or any rational person ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words.
> 
> Or ignore the Supreme Court on the Constitution. Or ignore the law on legal definitions? Or ignore any link on Islam save the one that you have deemed is 'reality'?
> 
> You've never been able to explain that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I insisted no such thing. But, I will insist that the term "marriage" as being used today is incorrect,
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Insist away. That and $5.00 at Starbucks will get you a cup of coffee.

And at least the coffee will be made from real beans.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Marriage is what it is- and in the United States- both legally- and linguistically- it is a legally recognized union between two persons of either gender.



When were children asked or represented as to their unique implicit share in the marriage contract?  Children want a mother and father.  The poll is clear.  Why do you want to hurt children?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is what it is- and in the United States- both legally- and linguistically- it is a legally recognized union between two persons of either gender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When were children asked or represented as to their unique implicit share in the marriage contract?  Children want a mother and father.  The poll is clear.  Why do you want to hurt children?
Click to expand...


As you know, denying marriage to same sex parents don't help any child. Even by your own standards, denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents. Which hurts those children and help none.

Making you proposal worse than useless. As it doesn't remedy any of the 'harms' you've alleged. While your proposal causes enormous harms:



			
				Windsor v. US said:
			
		

> And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....
> 
> ...DOMA also brings financial harm to children of samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.



You insist we inflict this harm on tens of thousands of children in exchange for nothing. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help any child.

No thank you.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that all definitions remain immutable and can never change is provably false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that.
> 
> But marriage is what it is, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is what it is.
> 
> Webster:
> 
> _the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife _
> _: a similar relationship between people of the same sex_
> _
> : a ceremony in which two people are married to each other_
> Oxford English Dictionary
> _The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:_
> 
> Marriage is what it is- and in the United States- both legally- and linguistically- it is a legally recognized union between two persons of either gender.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but they insist that the dictionary, the law and the courts are wrong on the meaning of words.....and only they are right.

Because they say they are.


----------



## EverCurious

Children want to be loved, period.  I doubt most children actually care about their parents sexual orientation unless they are /taught/ to dislike it; it's an upbringing bias against homosexuals imo.  Kids grow up in whatever family they grow up in, I grew up loving my step-father and my adopted sister and my adopted brothers.  There are absolutely /no/ "instinctive" rules about whom kids can love or look up to; that's why a lot of abused children don't seek help until they start to gain independence from their parents, and in fact why those same abused children are devastated emotionally if an abusive parent is removed from their life "for their own good."  A child's love does not have the strict boundaries you're insisting exist.


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> My link talks about reality. Yours talks about bullshit. But, you already knew that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing yourself. But you insist that definitions don't change and ignore the dictionary. So clearly you citing you is inadequate to carry your argument.
> 
> Do you have anything beyond insisting that you are an infallible arbiter? Because if that's the extent of your argument, you've already proven yourself wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are putting words in my mouth. If you want to debate, do so rationally.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've insisted that definitions don't change. The dictionary contradicts you. So you ignore the dictionary and cling to your opinion.
> 
> Why would I or any rational person ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words.
> 
> Or ignore the Supreme Court on the Constitution. Or ignore the law on legal definitions? Or ignore any link on Islam save the one that you have deemed is 'reality'?
> 
> You've never been able to explain that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I insisted no such thing. But, I will insist that the term "marriage" as being used today is incorrect,
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...



Except when you did:



			
				80zephyr said:
			
		

> *No, definitions do not change.* Stupid people tell us they change. We now have "definitions" that tell us a man is a woman, a white is a black, and a middle aged man is really a six year old girl.
> 
> Post 253
> 
> Poll.  Please Vote.  Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?



And now you've had to abandon your own argument, your own words. *Even you ignore the silly nonsense you offer.* Surely you can understand why we don't have any use for your claims.

Definitions change. You insist that definitions do NOT change. Your claim is provably false.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)

Why would I or any rational person ignore the dictionary and instead believe you? You've already proven that you're unreliable in defining terms, having offered us provably false nonsense.

You're done.


----------



## bodecea

80zephyr said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)
> 
> Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?
> 
> Why would any rational person?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome to your opinion- legally- and linguistically- you are incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *My opinion has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.* In law, the consummation of a marriage is considered part of the marriage. Gays cannot consummate a marriage. Therefore, there can be no marriage. Now, "we the people" can lie about it, and say there is, but in the back of our minds we understand that we hold a position that is logically impossible to hold.
> 
> Its a lot like the Orwell quotes. "War is peace" "Ignorance is knowledge"
> 
> IOW's the sheeple will believe anything.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How very true you are in that statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is true. How perceptive of you.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

I agree...Your opinion has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.


----------



## Skylar

bodecea said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome to your opinion- legally- and linguistically- you are incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *My opinion has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.* In law, the consummation of a marriage is considered part of the marriage. Gays cannot consummate a marriage. Therefore, there can be no marriage. Now, "we the people" can lie about it, and say there is, but in the back of our minds we understand that we hold a position that is logically impossible to hold.
> 
> Its a lot like the Orwell quotes. "War is peace" "Ignorance is knowledge"
> 
> IOW's the sheeple will believe anything.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How very true you are in that statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is true. How perceptive of you.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree...Your opinion has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...


Its the same schtich that Where_r_my_keys used to double down on: the insistence that their personal opinions are objective facts. 

And its still just their opinions.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Syriusly said:


> The reality is that same gender couples can and do get legally married- and get married in churches- and get married in front of friends and family.



  That is no more reality than Bruce Jenner being a woman is reality.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Syriusly said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that all definitions remain immutable and can never change is provably false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that.
> 
> But marriage is what it is, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is what it is.
> 
> Webster:
> 
> _the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife _
> _: a similar relationship between people of the same sex_
> _
> : a ceremony in which two people are married to each other_
> Oxford English Dictionary
> _The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:_
> 
> Marriage is what it is- and in the United States- both legally- and linguistically- it is a legally recognized union between two persons of either gender.
Click to expand...


  Marriage will never be anything other than between a man and a woman.  It is madness to declare otherwise.

  Madness, established in law, is still madness.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Silhouette said:


> When were children asked or represented as to their unique implicit share in the marriage contract?  Children want a mother and father.  The poll is clear.  Why do you want to hurt children?



  Wrong-wingers are fond of declaring that they pursue the policies that they do _“for the good of the children”_, even when those policies are overtly harmful to the interests of the children about whose interest the liberals profess concern.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> When were children asked or represented as to their unique implicit share in the marriage contract?  Children want a mother and father.  The poll is clear.  Why do you want to hurt children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong-wingers are fond of declaring that they pursue the policies that they do _“for the good of the children”_, even when those policies are overtly harmful to the interests of the children about whose interest the liberals profess concern.
Click to expand...


Save of course that denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help a single child. But instead hurts children by the 10s of thousands.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that all definitions remain immutable and can never change is provably false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that.
> 
> But marriage is what it is, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is what it is.
> 
> Webster:
> 
> _the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife _
> _: a similar relationship between people of the same sex_
> _
> : a ceremony in which two people are married to each other_
> Oxford English Dictionary
> _The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:_
> 
> Marriage is what it is- and in the United States- both legally- and linguistically- it is a legally recognized union between two persons of either gender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage will never be anything other than between a man and a woman.  It is madness to declare otherwise.
Click to expand...


Except that it isn't.



> Madness, established in law, is still madness.



Unless you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. In which case your declarations are meaningless.

The argument of you and your ilk has predictably degenerated into the same intellectually void fallacy: hopelessly trying to convince us that your subjective opinions are objective facts.

Nope.


----------



## Asclepias

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that all definitions remain immutable and can never change is provably false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that.
> 
> But marriage is what it is, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is what it is.
> 
> Webster:
> 
> _the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife _
> _: a similar relationship between people of the same sex_
> _
> : a ceremony in which two people are married to each other_
> Oxford English Dictionary
> _The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:_
> 
> Marriage is what it is- and in the United States- both legally- and linguistically- it is a legally recognized union between two persons of either gender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage will never be anything other than between a man and a woman.  It is madness to declare otherwise.
> 
> Madness, established in law, is still madness.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a legal term. Your denial is still madness.


----------



## Silhouette

Bob Blaylock said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> When were children asked or represented as to their unique implicit share in the marriage contract?  Children want a mother and father.  The poll is clear.  Why do you want to hurt children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong-wingers are fond of declaring that they pursue the policies that they do _“for the good of the children”_, even when those policies are overtly harmful to the interests of the children about whose interest the liberals profess concern.
Click to expand...


What the LGBT cult has done is milk the angst of children (gay teen suicides earlier on...they quit that..."children of gays NEED their parents to be married"...Kennedy swallowed that one hook line and sinker) in order to shove their agenda on the People without proper adjudication.  For instance, children had no representation for their unique implicit share of the enjoyments of the marriage contract (mother/father).  The Hearing omitted their (collective, over time, which is how Decisions affect our world) interests and instead revised the contract to omit their previous enjoyments based on the whining of adult gays who wanted the focus of broad binding law to focus JUST on the kids caught up in their lifestyle....

...And since a contract assuring vital (mom/dad) terms to a child cannot be amended to exclude those vital elements (infants/necessities & contract law: see "Infant Doctrine", also New York vs Ferber USSC 1982), any 'gay marriage' contract that represents itself also as a 'parenting contract/rights' is void.  It isn't merely 'voidable' upon challenge.  Contract law says it is already void before its ink is dry...  When children are involved implicitly in a contract, its terms may not contain conditions that are onerous to them, even when adults are exercising civil rights (NY v Ferber 1982).  Denying a child as a matter of binding contract, a father or mother for life "in marriage" is onerous to the word "children".  Not merely "just the children caught up in gay lifestyles".  Because as the cult expands its ranks over time, more and more and more children will bear this burden that is psychologically-harmful, if the law says to behavior/fad prone adults "go ahead and do what you like with this children's contract...insert your own terms.."

It is said in in infants and contract law "enter into a contract with children at your own peril" because children involved in contracts are the dominant party...More often than not, they can't be punished for breach, but adults always can.  Moreover, adults cannot include contractual terms that ever harm children.  Any such contract is immediately void.



Asclepias said:


> Marriage is a legal term. Your denial is still madness.



Yes, but WHY is it a legal term?  It was invented to cure the ills of children missing either a father or mother....for over a thousand years...  over 89% of the people polled here agree with me that it is important for children to have both a mother and father.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> What the LGBT cult has done is milk the angst of children (gay teen suicides earlier on...they quit that..."children of gays NEED their parents to be married"...Kennedy swallowed that one hook line and sinker) in order to shove their agenda on the People without proper adjudication. For instance, children had no representation for their unique implicit share of the enjoyments of the marriage contract (mother/father). The Hearing omitted their (collective, over time, which is how Decisions affect our world) interests and instead revised the contract to omit their previous enjoyments based on the whining of adult gays who wanted the focus of broad binding law to focus JUST on the kids caught up in their lifestyle....
> 
> ...And since a contract assuring vital (mom/dad) terms to a child cannot be amended to exclude those vital elements (infants/necessities & contract law: see "Infant Doctrine", also New York vs Ferber USSC 1982), any 'gay marriage' contract that represents itself also as a 'parenting contract/rights' is void. It isn't merely 'voidable' upon challenge. Contract law says it is already void before its ink is dry... When children are involved implicitly in a contract, its terms may not contain conditions that are onerous to them, even when adults are exercising civil rights (NY v Ferber 1982). Denying a child as a matter of binding contract, a father or mother for life "in marriage" is onerous to the word "children". Not merely "just the children caught up in gay lifestyles". Because as the cult expands its ranks over time, more and more and more children will bear this burden that is psychologically-harmful, if the law says to behavior/fad prone adults "go ahead and do what you like with this children's contract...insert your own terms.."
> 
> It is said in in infants and contract law "enter into a contract with children at your own peril" because children involved in contracts are the dominant party...More often than not, they can't be punished for breach, but adults always can. Moreover, adults cannot include contractual terms that ever harm children. Any such contract is immediately void.



Instead of just mindlessly repeating the same dumb shit ad infinitum, why don't you offer your solution to this problem you've been obsessing about for years? What is your end game here? Time for you to run away now.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Instead of just mindlessly repeating the same dumb shit ad infinitum, why don't you offer your solution to this problem you've been obsessing about for years? What is your end game here? Time for you to run away now.



Won't be running away.  The solution is for society to have a thorough conversation about ALL the parties to a marriage contract, what their unique enjoyments were/are to that contract, and why the contract was invented in the first place...as well as how states benefit fiscally from giving incentives in tax breaks for marrieds to insure the product of marriage (children) does not grow up to be in prisons, mental wards, on drugs or indigent: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

After this conversation, then states decide.  End game.


----------



## Asclepias

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of just mindlessly repeating the same dumb shit ad infinitum, why don't you offer your solution to this problem you've been obsessing about for years? What is your end game here? Time for you to run away now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Won't be running away.  The solution is for society to have a thorough conversation about ALL the parties to a marriage contract, what their unique enjoyments were/are to that contract, and why the contract was invented in the first place...as well as how states benefit fiscally from giving incentives in tax breaks for marrieds to insure the product of marriage (children) does not grow up to be in prisons, mental wards, on drugs or indigent: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY
> 
> After this conversation, then states decide.  End game.
Click to expand...

Give it a rest. Its the law in all 50 states dummy.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of just mindlessly repeating the same dumb shit ad infinitum, why don't you offer your solution to this problem you've been obsessing about for years? What is your end game here? Time for you to run away now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Won't be running away.  The solution is for society to have a thorough conversation about ALL the parties to a marriage contract, what their unique enjoyments were/are to that contract, and why the contract was invented in the first place...as well as how states benefit fiscally from giving incentives in tax breaks for marrieds to insure the product of marriage (children) does not grow up to be in prisons, mental wards, on drugs or indigent: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY
> 
> After this conversation, then states decide.  End game.
Click to expand...


So you opted for the mindlessly repeating the same bullshit again. Too funny.

Ending gay marriage in no way stops gays from raising children. Again, what's _your_ end game? What would _you_ love to see your state accomplish?

Quit tap dancing. We've all seen this number already.


----------



## Silhouette

Asclepias said:


> Give it a rest. Its the law in all 50 states dummy.



Not if it violates contractual terms children found necessary.  Then there is no law that binds anyone to follow Obergefell.   Pay attention here because you will read this in print again: Adults CANNOT change the terms of a contract they implicitly share with children to the children's detriment.  That is supported in the Infant's Doctrine re: necessities in contracts with children AND the Finding of New York vs Ferber (USSC 1982) where it was Found that even if an adult enjoys an unquestioned civil right, rock solid like the 1st Amendment to free speech, if that right harms a child physically or psychologically, the adult does not enjoy that right.

You're going to hear more of this in the future, you might as well study up on it now..


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that all definitions remain immutable and can never change is provably false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that.
> 
> But marriage is what it is, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is what it is.
> 
> Webster:
> 
> _the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife _
> _: a similar relationship between people of the same sex_
> _
> : a ceremony in which two people are married to each other_
> Oxford English Dictionary
> _The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:_
> 
> Marriage is what it is- and in the United States- both legally- and linguistically- it is a legally recognized union between two persons of either gender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage will never be anything other than between a man and a woman.  It is madness to declare otherwise.
> 
> Madness, established in law, is still madness.
Click to expand...


Actually madness is denying reality. 

Which is what you are doing. 

Reality is that same gender couples are legally marrying.

The most respected dictionaries in the English language say that they are married.

Who doesn't? an anonymous nobody on the internet- you.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> When were children asked or represented as to their unique implicit share in the marriage contract?  Children want a mother and father.  The poll is clear.  Why do you want to hurt children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong-wingers are fond of declaring that they pursue the policies that they do _“for the good of the children”_, even when those policies are overtly harmful to the interests of the children about whose interest the liberals profess concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the LGBT cult has done is milk the angst of children (gay teen suicides earlier on...they quit that..."children of gays NEED their parents to be married"...Kennedy swallowed that one hook line and sinker) in order to shove their agenda on the People without proper adjudication.
Click to expand...


Save of course that your concept of 'proper adjudication' is just you making shit up. *None of the 'requirements' you've imagined for 'proper adjudication' actually exist. *No, 'all children' aren't required to have a 'representative' at a Supreme Court hearing lest it be a 'mistrial'. There has never been a representative for 'all children' at any Supreme Court hearing. Ever. Nor is a hearing a trial. Making a 'mistrial' an impossibility.

You simply have no idea how our law works.

You're also just making shit up regarding Kennedy. Neither the Windsor decision nor the Obergefell ruling even mention suicide. Nor have you ever bothered t read the Obergefell ruling. Yet have no idea what Kennedy's basis was. But that doesn't stop you from offering your imagination as Kennedy's opinion.

Which, of course, it isn't. No one is.



> ...And since a contract assuring vital (mom/dad) terms to a child cannot be amended to exclude those vital elements (infants/necessities & contract law: see "Infant Doctrine", also New York vs Ferber USSC 1982), any 'gay marriage' contract that represents itself also as a 'parenting contract/rights' is void.  It isn't merely 'voidable' upon challenge.  Contract law says it is already void before its ink is dry...  When children are involved implicitly in a contract, its terms may not contain conditions that are onerous to them, even when adults are exercising civil rights (NY v Ferber 1982).  Denying a child as a matter of binding contract, a father or mother for life "in marriage" is onerous to the word "children".  Not merely "just the children caught up in gay lifestyles".  Because as the cult expands its ranks over time, more and more and more children will bear this burden that is psychologically-harmful, if the law says to behavior/fad prone adults "go ahead and do what you like with this children's contract...insert your own terms.."



Ferber never finds that same sex marriage hurts children, or even mentions marriage. It was a case about child pornography. You've literally imagined passages in the ruling that don't exist. Worse, you've ignored the explicit findings of the Supreme Court on the harm caused to children by not recognizing same sex marriage;



			
				Windsor v. US said:
			
		

> And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....
> 
> ....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses.  And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.



By your own pseudo-legal argument regarding Ferber, the Supreme Court should have done exactly what it did: recognize same sex marriage. As not recognizing same sex marriage harms children. While recognizing same sex marriage benefits them.

Your 'argument' is to ignore the explicit findings of the Supreme Court on the matter....and replace it with your imagination. *Then laughably insist that the Supreme Court is bound to your imagination.*

Um, no. It isn't. No one is. 



> It is said in in infants and contract law "enter into a contract with children at your own peril" because children involved in contracts are the dominant party...More often than not, they can't be punished for breach, but adults always can.  Moreover, adults cannot include contractual terms that ever harm children.  Any such contract is immediately void.



You're citing entertainment law for explicit contracts that obligate children, like contracts for child actors. No law nor court recognizes the marriage of parents as such a contract for any child. Nor have you ever been able to cite a single legal source that says this.

*The only one saying that a marriage of parents is a minor contract for children....is you. Citing yourself. *And you're nobody.

Again, your imagination creates no legal obligations for anyone. Get used to the idea.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give it a rest. Its the law in all 50 states dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if it violates contractual terms children found necessary.  Then there is no law that binds anyone to follow Obergefell. .
Click to expand...


There is no 'contractual terms'.

Tell Kim Davis all about how nobody has to follow Obergefell.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give it a rest. Its the law in all 50 states dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if it violates contractual terms children found necessary.  Then there is no law that binds anyone to follow Obergefell.   Pay attention here because you will read this in print again: Adults CANNOT change the terms of a contract they implicitly share with children to the children's detriment.  That is supported in the Infant's Doctrine re: necessities in contracts with children AND the Finding of New York vs Ferber (USSC 1982) where it was Found that even if an adult enjoys an unquestioned civil right, rock solid like the 1st Amendment to free speech, if that right harms a child physically or psychologically, the adult does not enjoy that right.
> 
> You're going to hear more of this in the future, you might as well study up on it now..
Click to expand...


Rinse and Repeat.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> When were children asked or represented as to their unique implicit share in the marriage contract?  Children want a mother and father.  The poll is clear.  Why do you want to hurt children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong-wingers are fond of declaring that they pursue the policies that they do _“for the good of the children”_, even when those policies are overtly harmful to the interests of the children about whose interest the liberals profess concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the LGBT cult has done is milk the angst of children (gay teen suicides earlier on..r.
Click to expand...


What the cult of gay hatred as established by Silhouette does is not give a damn about the health of children- just as she doesn't give a damn about gay teen suicides.

Remember- preventing two parents of the same gender from marriage has only one effect on children: it harms their children.

Since Silhouette spends inordinate amount of time promoting this- she clearly wants to harm the children of gay couples- as much as she wants to harm gays themselves.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of just mindlessly repeating the same dumb shit ad infinitum, why don't you offer your solution to this problem you've been obsessing about for years? What is your end game here? Time for you to run away now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After this conversation, then states decide.  End game.
Click to expand...


The states don't get to 'decide' to violate the United States Constitution.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give it a rest. Its the law in all 50 states dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to hear more of this in the future, you might as well study up on it now..
Click to expand...


We will be hearing the same crap from you over and over.

Everyone else is moving on to real issues.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give it a rest. Its the law in all 50 states dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if it violates contractual terms children found necessary.
Click to expand...


Which marriage doesn't. As no court nor law recognize marriage as a minor contract for children. Nor does any law nor court recognize children being married to their parents.

You made both up. And your imagination isn't 'contract law'. Its just you offering us pseudo-legal nonsense.



> Then there is no law that binds anyone to follow Obergefell.   Pay attention here because you will read this in print again: Adults CANNOT change the terms of a contract they implicitly share with children to the children's detriment.



You forgot one minor detail:* nothing you said is actually reflected in the law. *Show us any legal source that recognizes the marriage of parents as a minor contract for children.

You can't. As no law nor court does. The only one insisting that marriage is a minor contract for children....is you citing yourself. And you're nobody. Your imagination doesn't define any law or obligate anyone. 

As for 'reading this in print', *your legal predictions have always been wrong. *You've never once accurately predicted the outcome of any case. And your every attempt to tell us how the court will rule has been laughably, utterly wrong.

Making your latest prediction based on the same meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish just more meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish.


----------



## AceRothstein

Can all Sil created threads automatically route to the Rubber Room?  Thanks.


----------



## Skylar

AceRothstein said:


> Can all Sil created threads automatically route to the Rubber Room?  Thanks.



There are 49 of them so far. Each with dozens if not hundreds of pages of Sil offering her obsessive compulsive pseudo-legal gibberish.

She also created a website dedicated to the same topic where she begs for donations to fight gay marriage.

And created an entire message board where she is the only member, making 29 more threads on gay marriage where she talks exclusively to herself.

That's what mental illness looks like.


----------



## Skylar

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give it a rest. Its the law in all 50 states dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if it violates contractual terms children found necessary.  Then there is no law that binds anyone to follow Obergefell.   Pay attention here because you will read this in print again: Adults CANNOT change the terms of a contract they implicitly share with children to the children's detriment.  That is supported in the Infant's Doctrine re: necessities in contracts with children AND the Finding of New York vs Ferber (USSC 1982) where it was Found that even if an adult enjoys an unquestioned civil right, rock solid like the 1st Amendment to free speech, if that right harms a child physically or psychologically, the adult does not enjoy that right.
> 
> You're going to hear more of this in the future, you might as well study up on it now..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rinse and Repeat.
Click to expand...


Laughing....if I had a nickel for every time Sil made a prediction about a legal outcome and failed, I could probably buy a small car. 

But this time its different, huh?


----------



## mdk

Skylar said:


> Laughing....if I had a nickel for every time Sil made a prediction about a legal outcome and failed, I could probably buy a small car.
> 
> But this time its different, huh?



Her wild and nonsensical interpretation of Ferber would also ban single parenthood households. I am not seeing a 'hope exemption' for single parents anywhere in Ferber.


----------



## Skylar

mdk said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laughing....if I had a nickel for every time Sil made a prediction about a legal outcome and failed, I could probably buy a small car.
> 
> But this time its different, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her wild and nonsensical interpretation of Ferber would also ban single parenthood households. I am not seeing a 'hope exemption' for single parents anywhere in Ferber.
Click to expand...


Irrational Fixation is a hallmark of obsessive compulsions. Remember when she selectively quoted Windsor, insisting that Justice Kennedy was saying that the States get to make all decisions regarding marriage?

She quoted those carefully edited passages for months. Until the ruling came, anyway.

My favorite part is when she insisted that Justice Kennedy in Obergefell didn't understand what Justice Kennedy in Windsor meant. You can't teach that kind of batshit.


----------



## Carla_Danger

AceRothstein said:


> Can all Sil created threads automatically route to the Rubber Room?  Thanks.




Surely she's already posting these threads from a rubber room.


----------



## Skylar

Carla_Danger said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can all Sil created threads automatically route to the Rubber Room?  Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely she's already posting these threads from a rubber room.
Click to expand...


Not that I'm aware of. She's definitely ill. But my understanding is that she's still on her 'ranchette', disabled and slowly descending deeper into madness.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Skylar said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can all Sil created threads automatically route to the Rubber Room?  Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely she's already posting these threads from a rubber room.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not that I'm aware of. She's definitely ill. But my understanding is that she's still on her 'ranchette', disabled and slowly descending deeper into madness.
Click to expand...



I wonder what a psychologist would have to say about Silly Sil?  I'm guessing that someone so obsessed with the lifestyle of others, is probably not addressing some serious issues with their own life. I'm sure Sil is using this as a distraction.

I feel sorry for her, but she's doing this to herself.


----------



## mdk

Skylar said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laughing....if I had a nickel for every time Sil made a prediction about a legal outcome and failed, I could probably buy a small car.
> 
> But this time its different, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her wild and nonsensical interpretation of Ferber would also ban single parenthood households. I am not seeing a 'hope exemption' for single parents anywhere in Ferber.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrational Fixation is a hallmark of obsessive compulsions. Remember when she selectively quoted Windsor, insisting that Justice Kennedy was saying that the States get to make all decisions regarding marriage?
> 
> She quoted those carefully edited passages for months. Until the ruling came, anyway.
> 
> My favorite part is when she insisted that Justice Kennedy in Obergefell didn't understand what Justice Kennedy in Windsor meant. You can't teach that kind of batshit.
Click to expand...


Sure do. Months and months of gassing on about how Windsor reaffirmed the state's right to define marriage 56 times. Yes, states do get the right to define marriage, but those laws must past certain constitutional guarantees. For some odd reason that part was omitted from her spammy harangues. lol


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Syriusly said:


> Actually madness is denying reality.
> 
> Which is what you are doing.
> 
> Reality is that same gender couples are legally marrying.
> 
> The most respected dictionaries in the English language say that they are married.
> 
> Who doesn't? an anonymous nobody on the internet- you.



  The reality is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

  It is you who is denying reality, and it is your side that is abusing the force of law to try to impose madness and evil on society, in place of reality and reason.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Syriusly said:


> What the cult of gay hatred as established by Silhouette does is not give a damn about the health of children- just as she doesn't give a damn about gay teen suicides.
> 
> Remember- preventing two parents of the same gender from marriage has only one effect on children: it harms their children.



  The harm is done by deliberately depriving children of a proper family, that includes a mother and a father.

  Yours is the side of hatred against the children that you cause to be abused in this manner.

  And, of course, in true liberal fashion, you cite your ersatz concern for the children in defense of policies that willfully and deliberately harm these very same children.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Syriusly said:


> The states don't get to 'decide' to violate the United States Constitution.



  Only your side gets to do that, I guess.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually madness is denying reality.
> 
> Which is what you are doing.
> 
> Reality is that same gender couples are legally marrying.
> 
> The most respected dictionaries in the English language say that they are married.
> 
> Who doesn't? an anonymous nobody on the internet- you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that marriage is between a man and a woman.
> 
> It is you who is denying reality, and it is your side that is abusing the force of law to try to impose madness and evil on society, in place of reality and reason.
Click to expand...


Reality can't be destroyed. It can only be recognized.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the cult of gay hatred as established by Silhouette does is not give a damn about the health of children- just as she doesn't give a damn about gay teen suicides.
> 
> Remember- preventing two parents of the same gender from marriage has only one effect on children: it harms their children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The harm is done by deliberately depriving children of a proper family, that includes a mother and a father.
> 
> Yours is the side of hatred against the children that you cause to be abused in this manner.
> 
> And, of course, in true liberal fashion, you cite your ersatz concern for the children in defense of policies that willfully and deliberately harm these very same children.
Click to expand...


Leaving aside for a moment your claims that children are harmed- again- how does 'gay marriage' harm these children?

Lori and Molly have and are raising two children- but are not married.
Mary and Jane have and are raising two children- but are married- why are the children of Mary and Jane harmed by Mary and Jane being harmed?


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states don't get to 'decide' to violate the United States Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only your side gets to do that, I guess.
Click to expand...


Nope- nothing prevents 'your side' from going to court to argue your rights are violated also.

Note- the Supreme Court has decided against unconstitutional state gun laws.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Syriusly said:


> Leaving aside for a moment your claims that children are harmed- again- how does 'gay marriage' harm these children?
> 
> Lori and Molly have and are raising two children- but are not married.
> Mary and Jane have and are raising two children- but are married- why are the children of Mary and Jane harmed by Mary and Jane being harmed?



  It's nonsense.

  No, “Mary and Jane” are not married.  It is not possible for a woman to be married to another woman.  Marriage is only between a man and a woman.

  The law cannot declare two women to be married to each other, any more than it can declare Bruce Jenner to be a woman, nor any more than it can declare two plus two to equal a hundred.

  Both sets of children are being equally harmed, by being deprived of a father.  Imposing an insane fraud against one set of children, by declaring their two female “parents” to be “married”, does nothing to mitigate the harm that is already being willfully done to them.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leaving aside for a moment your claims that children are harmed- again- how does 'gay marriage' harm these children?
> 
> Lori and Molly have and are raising two children- but are not married.
> Mary and Jane have and are raising two children- but are married- why are the children of Mary and Jane harmed by Mary and Jane being harmed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's nonsense.
> 
> No, “Mary and Jane” are not married.  It is not possible for a woman to be married to another woman. .
Click to expand...


And again- legally you are wrong.

Mary and Jane have a marriage license- and all of the legal protections that go with that- and the protections for their children- Lori and Molly don't.

Tell us how children are harmed by having the legal protections of marriage?


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Reality can't be destroyed. It can only be recognized.



I'll have to remember that line when a "transgender" tells me he doesn't feel like a man, but feels like a woman trapped in a man's body.

I'll remind him of the reality between his legs.

Meanwhile, the reality of infants, necessities and contract law also can't be destroyed.  Might want to look it and New York vs Ferber (1982) up when you get a chance.  Children cannot be part of a contract with terms that strip them of a vital need.  Children may exist in single parent homes currently without a vital need, but they aren't there by contract, stripped for life even of the hope for improvement.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality can't be destroyed. It can only be recognized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll have to remember that line when a "transgender" tells me he doesn't feel like a man, but feels like a woman trapped in a man's body.
> t.
Click to expand...


Oh I am sure you will remember all sorts of things the voices in your head tell you.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality can't be destroyed. It can only be recognized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll have to remember that line when a "transgender" tells me he doesn't feel like a man, but feels like a woman trapped in a man's body.
> 
> I'll remind him of the reality between his legs.
> 
> Meanwhile, the reality of infants, necessities and contract law also can't be destroyed.  Might want to look it and New York vs Ferber (1982) up when you get a chance.  Children cannot be part of a contract with terms that strip them of a vital need.  Children may exist in single parent homes currently without a vital need, but they aren't there by contract, stripped for life even of the hope for improvement.
Click to expand...


All these little standards you pull out of your arse never seem to apply to heterosexuals. Good thing only the people in Imaginationland have to life by your standards.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Syriusly said:


> And again- legally you are wrong.
> 
> Mary and Jane have a marriage license- and all of the legal protections that go with that- and the protections for their children- Lori and Molly don't.
> 
> Tell us how children are harmed by having the legal protections of marriage?



  You're asking a question based on a false premise.

  The “marriage” is nothing more than a mockery that does nothing to protect the children.  Nothing about this is about protecting the interests of the children.  It's entirely about indulging and catering to the desires of immoral perverts; with no regard to how it affects the innocent children who are dragged into the resulting mess.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again- legally you are wrong.
> 
> Mary and Jane have a marriage license- and all of the legal protections that go with that- and the protections for their children- Lori and Molly don't.
> 
> Tell us how children are harmed by having the legal protections of marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking a question based on a false premise.
> 
> The “marriage” is nothing more than a mockery
Click to expand...


No- however much you disagree with it- Mary and Jane are legally as married as my wife and I are- and have the exact same legal protections as my wife and I have- and any children that they have have the same legal protections marriage provides children- as my child has.

So- why exactly do you want to deny legal protections to those children- knowing that this will cause those children actual legal harm?


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again- legally you are wrong.
> 
> Mary and Jane have a marriage license- and all of the legal protections that go with that- and the protections for their children- Lori and Molly don't.
> 
> Tell us how children are harmed by having the legal protections of marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking a question based on a false premise.
> 
> The “marriage” is nothing more than a mockery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- however much you disagree with it- Mary and Jane are legally as married as my wife and I are- and have the exact same legal protections as my wife and I have- and any children that they have have the same legal protections marriage provides children- as my child has.
> 
> So- why exactly do you want to deny legal protections to those children- knowing that this will cause those children actual legal harm?
Click to expand...

Your protections and perceived "rights" don't amount to squat legally if they deprive children of a father as a contractual guarantee for life.  Children are dominant litigants where contracts are concerned.  If a contract like yours "lesbian marriage" deprives a child of a marital necessity (marriage was created to cure the many ills of children not having a father or mother) then your contract is VOID.  It isn't merely voidable, it is already void. 

Read the Infant Doctrine and necessities in contracts when you get a minute.  Or, New York vs Ferber USSC 1982.. Is Gay Marriage Void?  New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again- legally you are wrong.
> 
> Mary and Jane have a marriage license- and all of the legal protections that go with that- and the protections for their children- Lori and Molly don't.
> 
> Tell us how children are harmed by having the legal protections of marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking a question based on a false premise.
> 
> The “marriage” is nothing more than a mockery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- however much you disagree with it- Mary and Jane are legally as married as my wife and I are- and have the exact same legal protections as my wife and I have- and any children that they have have the same legal protections marriage provides children- as my child has.
> 
> So- why exactly do you want to deny legal protections to those children- knowing that this will cause those children actual legal harm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your protections and perceived "rights" don't amount to squat legally if they deprive children of a father .
Click to expand...


Children are deprived of their father regularly- by divorce, by abandonment, by the criminal justice system.

Meanwhile- why exactly do you want harm the children of gay couples by preventing them from having married parents?


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> *Children are deprived of their father regularly*- by divorce, by abandonment, by the criminal justice system.



Not by a binding legal contract they aren't.  Gay marriage is the only set of conditions where the lack of a father (or mother) is imposed upon children by legal bind for their entire life.  Very different set of laws.  Might want to check into them when you get a minute.  See the link in my last post...


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Children are deprived of their father regularly*- by divorce, by abandonment, by the criminal justice system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .  Gay marriage is the only set of conditions where the lack of a father (or mother) is imposed upon children by legal bind for their entire life. ..
Click to expand...


Sigh- god you lie so much.

Most gay marriage involves no children.
Marriage of gay parents provides those children with legal protection and prevents those children from being harmed.
And marriage is hardly 'for their entire life' as the children of divorced parents can tell  you. 

Why again- do you want to harm the children of gay parents?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Syriusly said:


> Children are deprived of their father regularly- by divorce, by abandonment, by the criminal justice system.



  That children are deprived of fathers or mothers as a result of circumstances that are unfortunate and unavoidable is not, in any way, an excuse for intentionally setting children up avoidably to be so deprived.

  You might as well argue that there's nothing wrong with murder, since people will die anyway from other causes.




Syriusly said:


> Meanwhile- why exactly do you want harm the children of gay couples by preventing them from having married parents?



  Putting them in a situation where what they have is a set of homosexual perverts for “parents”, instead of a mother and a father, is what harms them.  Creating a fraud that declares these “parents” to be “married” does nothing to mitigate this harm.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Syriusly said:


> Sigh- god you lie so much.[/indent]·
> ·
> ·[/indent]Why again- do you want to harm the children of gay parents?



  You're the one who defends even putting children into that unhealthy and perverse situation in the first place; putting the lie to any claimed concern on your part for the well-being of those children.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Sigh- god you lie so much.
> 
> Most gay marriage involves no children.
> Marriage of gay parents provides those children with legal protection and prevents those children from being harmed.



We don't tailor rules of law to make some children feel comfortable.  We tailor the rule of law to make ALL children safe from harm.  Just because you believe your depriving your kids of a father is "good for them" (or, not being allowed to play house with your lesbian buddy could "harm" the kids you've involved..), does not mean your armchair assessment of "that which harms children" can or will be applied in a general scope as the rule of law concerning ALL marriage contracts as they affect ALL children over time.  That's how we set permanent laws: taking into account the scope of time and the greater good to the most amount of people...not your poor unfortunate exceptions....which..by your machinations "keeping them from harm"...actually winds up in their harm and the harm of many many more children to come who can now legally be swept away from either a mother or father for life as a new term of a binding contract.

Which is void upon its face therefore...


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh- god you lie so much.
> 
> Most gay marriage involves no children.
> Marriage of gay parents provides those children with legal protection and prevents those children from being harmed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't tailor rules of law to make some children feel comfortable.  We tailor the rule of law to make ALL children safe from harm.  ..
Click to expand...


But you want to tailor the harm to specifically harm the children of gay parents- while not making any children safe from harm at all.

Remember- preventing gay parents from marrying does not provide them with a father or a mother- it only ensures that they don't have married parents.

So again- why exactly do you want to harm the children of gay parents?


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh- god you lie so much.[/indent]·
> ·
> ·[/indent]Why again- do you want to harm the children of gay parents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who defends even putting children into that unhealthy and perverse situation in the first place;.
Click to expand...


When have I ever done any such thing- why exactly do you feel a need to lie about me?

There are children being raised by their gay parents all over the United States right now- preventing those children from having married parents does not help a single child- but it does harm those children specifically.

So why exactly are your morals so unhealthy and perverse that you would want harm to come to those children?


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children are deprived of their father regularly- by divorce, by abandonment, by the criminal justice system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might as well argue that there's nothing wrong with murder, since people will die anyway from other causes.
> \.
Click to expand...


So now you equate two parents trying their best to raise their children with murder. 

Wow- you bigots sure steep low.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Your protections and perceived "rights" don't amount to squat legally if they deprive children of a father as a contractual guarantee for life. Children are dominant litigants where contracts are concerned. If a contract like yours "lesbian marriage" deprives a child of a marital necessity (marriage was created to cure the many ills of children not having a father or mother) then your contract is VOID. It isn't merely voidable, it is already void.
> 
> Read the Infant Doctrine and necessities in contracts when you get a minute. Or, New York vs Ferber USSC 1982.. Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.



Perhaps if you click your heels together 3 times your fantasy findings in Ferber will be true.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually madness is denying reality.
> 
> Which is what you are doing.
> 
> Reality is that same gender couples are legally marrying.
> 
> The most respected dictionaries in the English language say that they are married.
> 
> Who doesn't? an anonymous nobody on the internet- you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...


The reality is that's your opinion. And your argument is insisting that your subjective opinion is objective reality. 

And subjective still isn't objective.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Your protections and perceived "rights" don't amount to squat legally if they deprive children of a father as a contractual guarantee for life. Children are dominant litigants where contracts are concerned. If a contract like yours "lesbian marriage" deprives a child of a marital necessity (marriage was created to cure the many ills of children not having a father or mother) then your contract is VOID. It isn't merely voidable, it is already void.
> 
> Read the Infant Doctrine and necessities in contracts when you get a minute. Or, New York vs Ferber USSC 1982.. Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.



Save that you're not citing the law. You're citing yourself. Ferber never finds that same sex marriage hurts kids.

_That's just you citing you._

No court nor law recognizes the marriage of parents as a minor contract for children. Or that children are married to their parents.

_That's just you citing you._

With the Supreme Court explicitly contradicting your claims, finding instead that same sex marriage benefits children. So you ignore the Supreme Court.

Ignoring the Supreme Court and citing yourself instead isn't a legal argument. You can't get around that.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Children are deprived of their father regularly*- by divorce, by abandonment, by the criminal justice system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not by a binding legal contract they aren't.  Gay marriage is the only set of conditions where the lack of a father (or mother) is imposed upon children by legal bind for their entire life.  Very different set of laws.  Might want to check into them when you get a minute.  See the link in my last post...
Click to expand...


No, that's same sex parenting. Not same sex marriage. That's where your argument breaks, even by your pseudo-legal standards. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't remedy any of the 'problems' you've cited. It merely guarantees that children never have married parents. Which hurts their children and help none.

Hurting children isn't benefiting them. And hurting children is all your proposal has ever done.

And of course, outside the wasteland of your pseudo-legal gibberish, the Supreme Court has already found that the right to marry has nothing to do with children. You disagree with the Supreme Court and so choose to ignore them.

Um.....so? What does your willful ignorance have to do with anyone's marriage?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Syriusly said:


> There are children being raised by their gay parents all over the United States right now- preventing those children from having married parents does not help a single child- but it does harm those children specifically.
> 
> So why exactly are your morals so unhealthy and perverse that you would want harm to come to those children?



  Putting children the situation of having “gay parents” inherently prevents them from having married parents.  Only a man and a woman can be married; not two men, and not two women.

  Your accusation that it is my side that is preventing these children from having married parents is absurd; and ignores the reality of what marriage is and why it is important.


----------



## mdk

Bob Blaylock said:


> Only a man and a woman can be married; not two men, and not two women.



You are free to believe that all you wish but your beliefs do not have any bearing on the law.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are children being raised by their gay parents all over the United States right now- preventing those children from having married parents does not help a single child- but it does harm those children specifically.
> 
> So why exactly are your morals so unhealthy and perverse that you would want harm to come to those children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Putting children the situation of having “gay parents” inherently prevents them from having married parents.
Click to expand...


Then you're railing against gay parenting. Not gay marriage. 

When gay and lesbian couples have kids.....what are you proposing we do? Take their kids away? 



> Only a man and a woman can be married; not two men, and not two women.



Except, of course, that two men can get married. As can two women. You can tell....but all the gay and lesbian couples getting married in every state. 

Remember, you insisting that your subjective opinion is objective reality doesn't actually change objective reality. Gays and lesbians still get married no matter what you believe. 

You're gloriously irrelevant to this entire process.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are children being raised by their gay parents all over the United States right now- preventing those children from having married parents does not help a single child- but it does harm those children specifically.
> 
> So why exactly are your morals so unhealthy and perverse that you would want harm to come to those children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Putting children the situation of having “gay parents” inherently prevents them from having married parents. .
Click to expand...


Well lets consider the 'alternatives' here:

Jill and Judy have two children by artificial insemination- you want to prevent their children from having married parents- do you also want the state to take those children away? Or perhaps you want the state to mandate sterilization of homosexuals, and mandatory abortions of lesbians who do get pregnant?
Bob and Bill adopt 3 handicapped children who were abandoned by their biological parents, and that have been languishing in group homes for 5 years- do you a) deny those children a home?  b) take those children away from the only parents who have ever wanted to raise them?
By the way- both scenarios are actual real scenarios.


----------



## xband

Mom and Pop were independent voters they told me when I was a young brat so I said I was independent. I found a job at a stinking hog farm when 15 to buy my own things and when I turned 18 went out on my own. I have been a staunch republican since Jimmy Carter who I voted for because he said he was a farmer. I found out later that he was not a peanut farmer but a peanut buyer so Jimmy lied to me.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Silhouette said:


> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.



Sigh... this is preposterous. My family life is none of your concern.


----------



## xband

My mom and dad were legally married in a church so I am not a bastard.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Skylar said:


> Except, of course, that two men can get married. As can two women.



  No, they cannot.  That is not what marriage is.

  Marriage is only between a man and a woman.  Having the law declare that two men can be married to each other, or that two women can be married to each other, is simply nonsense, and makes a mockery of the rule of law, as well as a mockery of marriage.

  It is no more valid than having a law that declares that two plus two equals a hundred.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except, of course, that two men can get married. As can two women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they cannot.  That is not what marriage is.
Click to expand...


Except that it is. You're stuck, bob. Your only argument is to insist that your personal opinion defines objective reality.

And it doesn't.



> Marriage is only between a man and a woman.



Or a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman. See how this works?



> Having the law declare that two men can be married to each other, or that two women can be married to each other, is simply nonsense, and makes a mockery of the rule of law, as well as a mockery of marriage.



Except that it isn't.

So, do you have anything other than you insisting your subjective opinion defines objective fact?

Oh, and you never did answer my question: Are you proposing that the children of same sex parents be taken from them?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Skylar said:


> So, do you have anything other than you insisting your subjective opinion defines objective fact?



  Objective fact is that marriage is what is is, defined by divine design, biological purpose, and thousands of years of human history; not by passing fads driven by sexual immorality and perversion.

  No matter how many times you repeat the ridiculous lie that there can be any such thing as marriage between two men or between two women, and no matter what you get a corrupt and degraded government to do to support this lie, it will remain a lie.




Skylar said:


> Oh, and you never did answer my question: Are you proposing that the children of same sex parents be taken from them?



  I didn't say that.  Of course, since you cannot refute what I am saying, you're apparently left with trying to falsely attribute something else to me that you think you can refute.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> So, do you have anything other than you insisting your subjective opinion defines objective fact?





Bob Blaylock said:


> Objective fact is that marriage is what is is, defined by divine design, biological purpose, and thousands of years of human history; not by passing fads driven by sexual immorality and perversion.
> 
> No matter how many times you repeat the ridiculous lie that there can be any such thing as marriage between two men or between two women, and no matter what you get a corrupt and degraded government to do to support this lie, it will remain a lie.



Bob, look into this thread and study the OP carefully: Is Gay Marriage Void?  New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you have anything other than you insisting your subjective opinion defines objective fact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Objective fact is that marriage is what is is, defined by divine design, biological purpose, and thousands of years of human history; not by passing fads driven by sexual immorality and perversion.
> 
> No matter how many times you repeat the ridiculous lie that there can be any such thing as marriage between two men or between two women, and no matter what you get a corrupt and degraded government to do to support this lie, it will remain a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bob, look into this thread and study the OP carefully: Is Gay Marriage Void?  New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.
Click to expand...


Study it carefully, Bob. It offers an amazing glimpse into the mind of the mentally ill.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you have anything other than you insisting your subjective opinion defines objective fact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Objective fact is that marriage is what is is, defined by divine design, biological purpose, and thousands of years of human history; not by passing fads driven by sexual immorality and perversion.
Click to expand...

Marriage is whatever we say it is. And has changed many, many times over the years. 

Your insistence that *your* favorite version of marriage is the only version of marriage possible is, of course, blithering nonsense. There's nothing intrinsic about marriage. Its whatever we say it is. 

And we've decided that it includes same sex couples. 

You disagree. So what? Your subjective opinion doesn't define anything objectively. 



> No matter how many times you repeat the ridiculous lie that there can be any such thing as marriage between two men or between two women, and no matter what you get a corrupt and degraded government to do to support this lie, it will remain a lie.



Your subjective opinion no more defines 'truth' and 'lies' anymore than it does reality.

You're stuck, Bob. As your only argument is desperately trying to convince us that YOU and only you get to define what marriage is. And you're nobody.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you have anything other than you insisting your subjective opinion defines objective fact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Objective fact is that marriage is what is is, defined by divine design, biological purpose, and thousands of years of human history; not by passing fads driven by sexual immorality and perversion.
> 
> No matter how many times you repeat the ridiculous lie that there can be any such thing as marriage between two men or between two women, and no matter what you get a corrupt and degraded government to do to support this lie, it will remain a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bob, look into this thread and study the OP carefully: Is Gay Marriage Void?  New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.
Click to expand...


And count how many times Ferber mentions marriage. 

It won't take long. You don't even need to use your fingers.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

mdk said:


> Study it carefully, Bob. It offers an amazing glimpse into the mind of the mentally ill.



  I really am mot interested in a mental health diagnosis from someone who denies the differences between male and female, along with the significance of these differences.  Certainly, this denial is solid proof of delusional mental illness on the part of those who cling thereto.


----------



## mdk

Bob Blaylock said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Study it carefully, Bob. It offers an amazing glimpse into the mind of the mentally ill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really am mot interested in a mental health diagnosis from someone who denies the differences between male and female, along with the significance of these differences.  Certainly, this denial is solid proof of delusional mental illness on the part of those who cling thereto.
Click to expand...


Oh well. I suppose gays will just have to live with the fact that some internet random doesn't approve of their lifestyle. I hope one day they'll get over this sharp rebuke.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Study it carefully, Bob. It offers an amazing glimpse into the mind of the mentally ill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really am mot interested in a mental health diagnosis from someone who denies the differences between male and female, along with the significance of these differences.  Certainly, this denial is solid proof of delusional mental illness on the part of those who cling thereto.
Click to expand...


Oh, we recognize the difference between male and female. Its just not relevant to who can marry. 

So is that it? Just you insisting that your subjective opinion defines reality?

If so, you're done.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Oh, we recognize the difference between male and female. Its just not relevant to who can marry.
> 
> .



It's relevant to children.  Take a second look at the poll at the top of this page...


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, we recognize the difference between male and female. Its just not relevant to who can marry.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's relevant to children.  Take a second look at the poll at the top of this page...
Click to expand...


How, pray tell, does marriage magically define the gender of one's parents?

Is there some law that prevents same sex couples from having kids unless they are married? Nope.

Are same sex parents magically transformed into opposite sex parents if they are denied marriage? Nope. 

Marriage is quite simply irrelevant to every 'problem' you've cited. Allow gays to marry or deny them marriage.....same sex parents are still same sex parents. And denying same sex parents marriage only hurts their children while benefiting none.

As you already know.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, we recognize the difference between male and female. Its just not relevant to who can marry.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's relevant to children.  Take a second look at the poll at the top of this page...
Click to expand...


*


Skylar said:



			How, pray tell, does marriage magically define the gender of one's parents?
		
Click to expand...

*
By the state defined terms "man and woman".  Next stupid question.  No child is ever born of the sexual activity of two people of the same gender.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, we recognize the difference between male and female. Its just not relevant to who can marry.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's relevant to children.  Take a second look at the poll at the top of this page...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> How, pray tell, does marriage magically define the gender of one's parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> By the state defined terms "man and woman".  Next stupid question.  No child is ever born of the sexual activity of two people of the same gender.
Click to expand...


You didn't answer my question.

*How does marriage define the gender of one's parents?*

Is there some law that prevents same sex couples from having kids unless they are married? _Nope._

Are same sex parents magically transformed into opposite sex parents if they are denied marriage? _Nope._

Marriage is quite simply irrelevant to every 'problem' you've cited. *Allow gays to marry or deny them marriage.....same sex parents are still same sex parents. *And denying same sex parents marriage only hurts their children while benefiting none.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Skylar said:


> Oh, we recognize the difference between male and female. Its just not relevant to who can marry.
> 
> So is that it? Just you insisting that your subjective opinion defines reality?



  The distinction between the sexes, and the relationship between them, is at the very core of the definition, nature, and purpose  of marriage.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, we recognize the difference between male and female. Its just not relevant to who can marry.
> 
> So is that it? Just you insisting that your subjective opinion defines reality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The distinction between the sexes, and the relationship between them, is at the very core of the definition, nature, and purpose  of marriage.
Click to expand...


Says who? And that's where your argument breaks. As your only source is you citing yourself.

And you're nobody.

Meanwhile, same sex couples are married in 50 of 50 States. Get used to the idea.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, we recognize the difference between male and female. Its just not relevant to who can marry.
> 
> So is that it? Just you insisting that your subjective opinion defines reality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The distinction between the sexes, and the relationship between them, is at the very core of the definition, nature, and purpose  of marriage.
Click to expand...


Says the person who denies the reality of both Dictionaries and the legal marriages taking place.....


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Oh, we recognize the difference between male and female. Its just not relevant to who can marry.
> 
> So is that it? Just you insisting that your subjective opinion defines reality?





Bob Blaylock said:


> The distinction between the sexes, and the relationship between them, is at the very core of the definition, nature, and purpose  of marriage.





Syriusly said:


> Says the person who denies the reality of both Dictionaries and the legal marriages taking place.....


More gaslighting.  Your group is the one that calls men "she" who dress up in sterotypical girl-slut costumes and hack their dicks off.  Who is reinventing dictionaries?

No contract may exist with children, like the marriage contract implicitly does, that contains terms onerous to children.  Binding them away from the hope of either a mother or father for life is an onerous term.  Contract law says that these contracts are not merely voidable, they are already void.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> No contract may exist with children, like the marriage contract implicitly does, that contains terms onerous to children. Binding them away from the hope of either a mother or father for life is an onerous term. Contract law says that these contracts are not merely voidable, they are already void.



Perhaps if you repeat this bullshit again it will come true? I wouldn't bet on it, though. Meanwhile, gays continue to marry and raise their families all the while not being bound by  the standards of your imagination.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, we recognize the difference between male and female. Its just not relevant to who can marry.
> 
> So is that it? Just you insisting that your subjective opinion defines reality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> The distinction between the sexes, and the relationship between them, is at the very core of the definition, nature, and purpose  of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the person who denies the reality of both Dictionaries and the legal marriages taking place.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More gaslighting.  Your group is the one that calls men "she" who dress up in sterotypical girl-slut costumes and hack their dicks off.  Who is reinventing dictionaries?
Click to expand...


You, if you deny that same sex marriage is marriage. 



> No contract may exist with children, like the marriage contract implicitly does, that contains terms onerous to children.  Binding them away from the hope of either a mother or father for life is an onerous term.  Contract law says that these contracts are not merely voidable, they are already void.



Then show us one law or court that recognizes that a marriage of parents creates a minor contract for their children.

*You can't. You made it up. *And it ends your entire argument. As you're not citing contract law. You're citing yourself.

And legally, you're nobody.

*Citing yourself as the law isn't a legal argument, Sil.  *And its why your legal predication are always, always wrong; you can't distinguish between your imagination and the actual law. And the courts follow the actual law. Not your imagination.


----------



## JimBowie1958

The vast majority of people realize that a child needs both a mother and a father to raise them, except for the perverts, of course who only care about they sexual activities.


----------



## Skylar

JimBowie1958 said:


> The vast majority of people realize that a child needs both a mother and a father to raise them, except for the perverts, of course who only care about they sexual activities.



And how does marriage define the gender of one's parents?

Is there some law that forbids same sex parents from having children unless married? Nope.

Do same sex parents magically become opposite sex parents if they are denied marriage? Nope. 

Marriage is simply irrelevant to the gender of parents. Recognizes gay marriage or deny gays the right to marry....*and same sex parents are still same sex parents.* Denying marriage to same sex parents merely guarantees that their children _will never have married parents_.

Which hurts children by the hundreds of thousands. And helps none.


----------



## Silhouette

JimBowie1958 said:


> The vast majority of people realize that a child needs both a mother and a father to raise them, except for the perverts, of course who only care about they sexual activities.


Yeah, poor Skylar and mdk.   That pesky poll keeps getting in the way of their LGBT payroll talking points!


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Unless you had shitty circumstances like mine in my childhood how can ANYONE say yes, I had a mom and a dad but it wasn't important to me?

That is some serious emotional detachment from what's important in life, especially as a child.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Yeah, poor Skylar and mdk.  That pesky poll keeps getting in the way of their LGBT payroll talking points!



Yeah, poor Sil. That pesky reality keeps getting in the way that you can't do shit to stop gays from marrying and raising their families. Save whining about it on the Internet.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of people realize that a child needs both a mother and a father to raise them, except for the perverts, of course who only care about they sexual activities.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, poor Skylar and mdk.   That pesky poll keeps getting in the way of their LGBT payroll talking points!
Click to expand...


Laughing......nope. The pesky poll has nothing to do with same sex marriage. As the gender of one's parents aren't defined by marriage.

Recognize marriage for gays or deny gays the right to marry and *same sex parents are still same sex parents.* You can't get around that.

Which might explain why your pseudo-legal gibberings have no relevance to the outcome of any court case. And why same sex marriage is recognized in 50 of 50 States. Despite your insistence otherwise.


----------



## Silhouette

Grampa Murked U said:


> Unless you had shitty circumstances like mine in my childhood how can ANYONE say yes, I had a mom and a dad but it wasn't important to me?
> 
> That is some serious emotional detachment from what's important in life, especially as a child.


Yes, emotionally-detached.  Hidden issues.  Deep psychological problems...

You see, when the LGBTs forced the APA to remove themselves from the DSM, they also removed any urges or requirements or impetus to self-examine.  So their insanity becomes "sane".  Not surprising, just a few years after they did this, they removed the scientific requirement standard (Google "Leona Tyler standard) from the bylaws of the APA.  They didn't even vote on it on the Board of Directors.  "They" just disappeared it.  It stated that for any public position the APA took on matters of psychology, they would have hard science behind it.

A cult can't have hard science getting in the way of dogma, now can they?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you had shitty circumstances like mine in my childhood how can ANYONE say yes, I had a mom and a dad but it wasn't important to me?
> 
> That is some serious emotional detachment from what's important in life, especially as a child.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, emotionally-detached.  Hidden issues.  Deep psychological problems...
> 
> You see, when the LGBTs forced the APA to remove themselves from the DSM, they also removed any urges or requirements or impetus to self-examine.
Click to expand...


The APA was 'forced'.....according to you. Not the APA. Your argument is again just you making shit up. 

So much for your babble about 'hard science'.


----------



## Silhouette

Grampa Murked U said:


> Unless you had shitty circumstances like mine in my childhood how can ANYONE say yes, I had a mom and a dad but it wasn't important to me?
> 
> That is some serious emotional detachment from what's important in life, especially as a child.


Yes, emotionally-detached.  Hidden issues.  Deep psychological problems...

You see, when the LGBTs forced the APA to remove themselves from the DSM, they also removed any urges or requirements or impetus to self-examine. So their insanity becomes "sane". Not surprising, just a few years after they did this, they removed the scientific requirement standard (Google "Leona Tyler standard) from the bylaws of the APA. They didn't even vote on it on the Board of Directors. "They" just disappeared it. It stated that for any public position the APA took on matters of psychology, they would have hard science behind it.

A cult can't have hard science getting in the way of dogma, now can they?



Skylar said:


> The APA was 'forced'.....according to you. Not the APA. Your argument is again just you making shit up.
> 
> So much for your babble about 'hard science'.



*****
The APA and Homosexuality
*In the early 1970s, annual meetings of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) were home to angry showdowns between the gay rights lobby and organized psychiatry. Activists picketed convention sites, shouted down speakers, and waged ad hominem attacks on psychiatrists *who sincerely believed that homosexuality was a sickness. *The goal of their flamboyant campaign against the APA  an impressive display of guerrilla theater, as one psychiatrist put it  was to force the association to take homosexuality out of its official handbook, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, second edition, popularly known as the DSM-II*.

In December 1973, they won. A decisive majority of the APA board of trustees voted to remove homosexuality from the professional nomenclature.Doctors Rule Homosexuals Not Abnormal, read the headline in the next days Washington Post.

********


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you had shitty circumstances like mine in my childhood how can ANYONE say yes, I had a mom and a dad but it wasn't important to me?
> 
> That is some serious emotional detachment from what's important in life, especially as a child.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, emotionally-detached.  Hidden issues.  Deep psychological problems...
> 
> You see, when the LGBTs forced the APA to remove themselves from the DSM, they also removed any urges or requirements or impetus to self-examine. So their insanity becomes "sane". Not surprising, just a few years after they did this, they removed the scientific requirement standard (Google "Leona Tyler standard) from the bylaws of the APA. They didn't even vote on it on the Board of Directors. "They" just disappeared it. It stated that for any public position the APA took on matters of psychology, they would have hard science behind it.
> 
> A cult can't have hard science getting in the way of dogma, now can they?
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA was 'forced'.....according to you. Not the APA. Your argument is again just you making shit up.
> 
> So much for your babble about 'hard science'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *****
> The APA and Homosexuality
> *In the early 1970s, annual meetings of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) were home to angry showdowns between the gay rights lobby and organized psychiatry. Activists picketed convention sites, shouted down speakers, and waged ad hominem attacks on psychiatrists *who sincerely believed that homosexuality was a sickness. *The goal of their flamboyant campaign against the APA  an impressive display of guerrilla theater, as one psychiatrist put it  was to force the association to take homosexuality out of its official handbook, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, second edition, popularly known as the DSM-II*.
> 
> In December 1973, they won. A decisive majority of the APA board of trustees voted to remove homosexuality from the professional nomenclature.Doctors Rule Homosexuals Not Abnormal, read the headline in the next days Washington Post.
> 
> ********
Click to expand...


And when you include the very next sentence of your own article, your entire conspiracy falls apart:



> In December 1973, they won. A decisive majority of the APA board of trustees voted to remove homosexuality from the professional nomenclature.”Doctors Rule Homosexuals Not Abnormal,” read the headline in the next day’s Washington Post.* It was a major victory both for gay people and for the enlightened wing of the psychiatric establishment. *
> 
> The APA and Homosexuality



The APA wasn't 'forced' to recognize that homosexuality wasn't a mental illness. It was APA psychologists themselves that  were pushing for the reclassification.

Which of course, you know. But really hope we don't.

You always show me where you know your argument is weak.....but what you carefully omit.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> My link talks about reality. Yours talks about bullshit. But, you already knew that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing yourself. But you insist that definitions don't change and ignore the dictionary. So clearly you citing you is inadequate to carry your argument.
> 
> Do you have anything beyond insisting that you are an infallible arbiter? Because if that's the extent of your argument, you've already proven yourself wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are putting words in my mouth. If you want to debate, do so rationally.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've insisted that definitions don't change. The dictionary contradicts you. So you ignore the dictionary and cling to your opinion.
> 
> Why would I or any rational person ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words.
> 
> Or ignore the Supreme Court on the Constitution. Or ignore the law on legal definitions? Or ignore any link on Islam save the one that you have deemed is 'reality'?
> 
> You've never been able to explain that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I insisted no such thing. But, I will insist that the term "marriage" as being used today is incorrect,
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Insist away. That and $5.00 at Starbucks will get you a cup of coffee.
> 
> And at least the coffee will be made from real beans.
Click to expand...


Rational people know I'm right. You probably believe Bruce Jenner is a woman because he puts on a dress.

Reality does not change just because delusional people wish it to.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you had shitty circumstances like mine in my childhood how can ANYONE say yes, I had a mom and a dad but it wasn't important to me?
> 
> That is some serious emotional detachment from what's important in life, especially as a child.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, emotionally-detached.  Hidden issues.  Deep psychological problems...
> 
> You see, when the LGBTs forced the APA to remove themselves from the DSM, they also removed any urges or requirements or impetus to self-examine. So their insanity becomes "sane". Not surprising, just a few years after they did this, they removed the scientific requirement standard (Google "Leona Tyler standard) from the bylaws of the APA. They didn't even vote on it on the Board of Directors. "They" just disappeared it. It stated that for any public position the APA took on matters of psychology, they would have hard science behind it.
> 
> A cult can't have hard science getting in the way of dogma, now can they?
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The APA was 'forced'.....according to you. Not the APA. Your argument is again just you making shit up.
> 
> So much for your babble about 'hard science'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *****
> The APA and Homosexuality
> *In the early 1970s, annual meetings of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) were home to angry showdowns between the gay rights lobby and organized psychiatry. Activists picketed convention sites, shouted down speakers, and waged ad hominem attacks on psychiatrists *who sincerely believed that homosexuality was a sickness. *The goal of their flamboyant campaign against the APA  an impressive display of guerrilla theater, as one psychiatrist put it  was to force the association to take homosexuality out of its official handbook, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, second edition, popularly known as the DSM-II*.
> 
> In December 1973, they won. A decisive majority of the APA board of trustees voted to remove homosexuality from the professional nomenclature.Doctors Rule Homosexuals Not Abnormal, read the headline in the next days Washington Post.
> 
> ********
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when you include the very next sentence of your own article, your entire conspiracy falls apart:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In December 1973, they won. A decisive majority of the APA board of trustees voted to remove homosexuality from the professional nomenclature.”Doctors Rule Homosexuals Not Abnormal,” read the headline in the next day’s Washington Post.* It was a major victory both for gay people and for the enlightened wing of the psychiatric establishment. *
> 
> The APA and Homosexuality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The APA wasn't 'forced' to recognize that homosexuality wasn't a mental illness. It was APA psychologists themselves that  were pushing for the reclassification.
> 
> Which of course, you know. But really hope we don't.
> 
> You always show me where you know your argument is weak.....but what you carefully omit.
Click to expand...

The APA has classified pedophilia as a sexual orientation as well. I suppose they have to. If one deviancy is normal, all others have to be as well.

Mark


----------



## teddyearp

Your poll is not objective at all with the fact you included the political labels within it.  You left out Libertarians, lol.  And bacon, lol.

So my answer is yes, my parents stayed together for my whole life and I am glad of it.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing yourself. But you insist that definitions don't change and ignore the dictionary. So clearly you citing you is inadequate to carry your argument.
> 
> Do you have anything beyond insisting that you are an infallible arbiter? Because if that's the extent of your argument, you've already proven yourself wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are putting words in my mouth. If you want to debate, do so rationally.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've insisted that definitions don't change. The dictionary contradicts you. So you ignore the dictionary and cling to your opinion.
> 
> Why would I or any rational person ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words.
> 
> Or ignore the Supreme Court on the Constitution. Or ignore the law on legal definitions? Or ignore any link on Islam save the one that you have deemed is 'reality'?
> 
> You've never been able to explain that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I insisted no such thing. But, I will insist that the term "marriage" as being used today is incorrect,
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Insist away. That and $5.00 at Starbucks will get you a cup of coffee.
> 
> And at least the coffee will be made from real beans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rational people know I'm right
Click to expand...


Rational people avoid you like they do a dog with rabies.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> [
> *****
> The APA and HomosexualityA]



For about 12 years the APA considered homosexuality a mental illness.

Then, based upon the evidence, the APA reconsidered, and for the last 30 years has not considered homosexuality a mental illness.

Just like female hysteria is no longer considered a mental illness.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are putting words in my mouth. If you want to debate, do so rationally.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've insisted that definitions don't change. The dictionary contradicts you. So you ignore the dictionary and cling to your opinion.
> 
> Why would I or any rational person ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words.
> 
> Or ignore the Supreme Court on the Constitution. Or ignore the law on legal definitions? Or ignore any link on Islam save the one that you have deemed is 'reality'?
> 
> You've never been able to explain that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I insisted no such thing. But, I will insist that the term "marriage" as being used today is incorrect,
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Insist away. That and $5.00 at Starbucks will get you a cup of coffee.
> 
> And at least the coffee will be made from real beans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rational people know I'm right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rational people avoid you like they do a dog with rabies.
Click to expand...

Actually, if they want to keep their sanity, stay grounded, and not devolve into a "1984" type society by denying reality, they will pay attention when I speak the obvious.

*We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.*
* George Orwell*


Mark


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've insisted that definitions don't change. The dictionary contradicts you. So you ignore the dictionary and cling to your opinion.
> 
> Why would I or any rational person ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words.
> 
> Or ignore the Supreme Court on the Constitution. Or ignore the law on legal definitions? Or ignore any link on Islam save the one that you have deemed is 'reality'?
> 
> You've never been able to explain that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I insisted no such thing. But, I will insist that the term "marriage" as being used today is incorrect,
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Insist away. That and $5.00 at Starbucks will get you a cup of coffee.
> 
> And at least the coffee will be made from real beans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rational people know I'm right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rational people avoid you like they do a dog with rabies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, if they want to keep their sanity, stay grounded, and not devolve into a "1984" type society by denying reality, they will pay attention when I speak the obvious.
> 
> *We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.*
> * George Orwell*
> 
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...



When they see you staggering down the street, waving your sign........the smart, rational ones scatter before you can start shouting trying to get someone to pay attention


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> *****
> The APA and HomosexualityA]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For about 12 years the APA considered homosexuality a mental illness.
> 
> Then, based upon the evidence, the APA reconsidered, and for the last 30 years has not considered homosexuality a mental illness.
> 
> Just like female hysteria is no longer considered a mental illness.
Click to expand...

And pedophilia is also just an orientation. I suppose that necrophilia and bestiality are as well. Welcome to a world the left was hoping for.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I insisted no such thing. But, I will insist that the term "marriage" as being used today is incorrect,
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insist away. That and $5.00 at Starbucks will get you a cup of coffee.
> 
> And at least the coffee will be made from real beans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rational people know I'm right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rational people avoid you like they do a dog with rabies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, if they want to keep their sanity, stay grounded, and not devolve into a "1984" type society by denying reality, they will pay attention when I speak the obvious.
> 
> *We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.*
> * George Orwell*
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When they see you staggering down the street, waving your sign........the smart, rational ones scatter before you can start shouting trying to get someone to pay attention
> View attachment 65082
Click to expand...


I would rather be me than you. I understand that Jenner is a man, and that marriage cannot happen in a gay marriage.

Only a child pretends the world is different than it really is.

Mark


----------



## WorldWatcher

80zephyr said:


> marriage cannot happen in a gay marriage.
> 
> Only a child pretends the world is different than it really is.
> 
> Mark











>>>>


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've insisted that definitions don't change. The dictionary contradicts you. So you ignore the dictionary and cling to your opinion.
> 
> Why would I or any rational person ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words.
> 
> Or ignore the Supreme Court on the Constitution. Or ignore the law on legal definitions? Or ignore any link on Islam save the one that you have deemed is 'reality'?
> 
> You've never been able to explain that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I insisted no such thing. But, I will insist that the term "marriage" as being used today is incorrect,
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Insist away. That and $5.00 at Starbucks will get you a cup of coffee.
> 
> And at least the coffee will be made from real beans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rational people know I'm right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rational people avoid you like they do a dog with rabies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, if they want to keep their sanity, stay grounded, and not devolve into a "1984" type society by denying reality, they will pay attention when I speak the obvious.
> 
> *We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.*
> * George Orwell*
> 
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Aren't you the one that is ignoring the law and the dictionary, insisting that definitions do not change?

Or am I thinking of someone else?


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I insisted no such thing. But, I will insist that the term "marriage" as being used today is incorrect,
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insist away. That and $5.00 at Starbucks will get you a cup of coffee.
> 
> And at least the coffee will be made from real beans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rational people know I'm right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rational people avoid you like they do a dog with rabies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, if they want to keep their sanity, stay grounded, and not devolve into a "1984" type society by denying reality, they will pay attention when I speak the obvious.
> 
> *We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.*
> * George Orwell*
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aren't you the one that is ignoring the law and the dictionary, insisting that definitions do not change?
> 
> Or am I thinking of someone else?
Click to expand...


Men can change the definition of a word. But, they cannot change the reality of it. That is why gays cannot marry and Jenner can never be a woman. Even if the law says he's a woman.

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Insist away. That and $5.00 at Starbucks will get you a cup of coffee.
> 
> And at least the coffee will be made from real beans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rational people know I'm right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rational people avoid you like they do a dog with rabies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, if they want to keep their sanity, stay grounded, and not devolve into a "1984" type society by denying reality, they will pay attention when I speak the obvious.
> 
> *We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.*
> * George Orwell*
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When they see you staggering down the street, waving your sign........the smart, rational ones scatter before you can start shouting trying to get someone to pay attention
> View attachment 65082
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and that marriage cannot happen in a gay marriage.k
Click to expand...


Yet the actual reality- the real reality- not what voices in your head say- say you are delusional.

Per both the Webster and Oxford English Dictionary- marriage includes same gender couples.

And thousands of same gender couples are being married legally married all around the United States.

You are as deluded as the person who claims that a mixed race couple is not really married.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Insist away. That and $5.00 at Starbucks will get you a cup of coffee.
> 
> And at least the coffee will be made from real beans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rational people know I'm right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rational people avoid you like they do a dog with rabies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, if they want to keep their sanity, stay grounded, and not devolve into a "1984" type society by denying reality, they will pay attention when I speak the obvious.
> 
> *We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.*
> * George Orwell*
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aren't you the one that is ignoring the law and the dictionary, insisting that definitions do not change?
> 
> Or am I thinking of someone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men can change the definition of a word. But, they cannot change the reality of it.
Click to expand...


Marriage is a Man made institution.

Man can and does define what words mean- and by 'man'- I mean functional rational human beings- not you.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> *****
> The APA and HomosexualityA]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For about 12 years the APA considered homosexuality a mental illness.
> 
> Then, based upon the evidence, the APA reconsidered, and for the last 30 years has not considered homosexuality a mental illness.
> 
> Just like female hysteria is no longer considered a mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And pedophilia is also just an orientation. I suppose that necrophilia and bestiality are as well. Welcome to a world the left was hoping for.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...







You equate bestiality with female hysteria. You equate child rape with consensual adult sex.

No wonder you wave that sign.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rational people know I'm right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rational people avoid you like they do a dog with rabies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, if they want to keep their sanity, stay grounded, and not devolve into a "1984" type society by denying reality, they will pay attention when I speak the obvious.
> 
> *We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.*
> * George Orwell*
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When they see you staggering down the street, waving your sign........the smart, rational ones scatter before you can start shouting trying to get someone to pay attention
> View attachment 65082
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and that marriage cannot happen in a gay marriage.k
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet the actual reality- the real reality- not what voices in your head say- say you are delusional.
> 
> Per both the Webster and Oxford English Dictionary- marriage includes same gender couples.
> 
> And thousands of same gender couples are being married legally married all around the United States.
> 
> You are as deluded as the person who claims that a mixed race couple is not really married.
Click to expand...


I have never denied that people can change a definition. I do deny that they can change reality. Society now tells us that Jenner is a woman. Hell, they could even pass a law stating that "fact".

Will it change reality? No. 

So, you can say gays are married, if it makes you feel better. Reality says something different.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> *****
> The APA and HomosexualityA]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For about 12 years the APA considered homosexuality a mental illness.
> 
> Then, based upon the evidence, the APA reconsidered, and for the last 30 years has not considered homosexuality a mental illness.
> 
> Just like female hysteria is no longer considered a mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And pedophilia is also just an orientation. I suppose that necrophilia and bestiality are as well. Welcome to a world the left was hoping for.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You equate bestiality with female hysteria. You equate child rape with consensual adult sex.
> 
> No wonder you wave that sign.
Click to expand...


Sorry, thats the APA that says so. You'll have to take it up with them.

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rational people avoid you like they do a dog with rabies.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if they want to keep their sanity, stay grounded, and not devolve into a "1984" type society by denying reality, they will pay attention when I speak the obvious.
> 
> *We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.*
> * George Orwell*
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When they see you staggering down the street, waving your sign........the smart, rational ones scatter before you can start shouting trying to get someone to pay attention
> View attachment 65082
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and that marriage cannot happen in a gay marriage.k
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet the actual reality- the real reality- not what voices in your head say- say you are delusional.
> 
> Per both the Webster and Oxford English Dictionary- marriage includes same gender couples.
> 
> And thousands of same gender couples are being married legally married all around the United States.
> 
> You are as deluded as the person who claims that a mixed race couple is not really married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never denied that people can change a definition. I do deny that they can change reality.
Click to expand...


Marriage is whatever we say marriage is. 

That is the reality.

In the United States, any couple issued a marriage license is in reality- married.

Those who claim otherwise are denying reality.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if they want to keep their sanity, stay grounded, and not devolve into a "1984" type society by denying reality, they will pay attention when I speak the obvious.
> 
> *We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.*
> * George Orwell*
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they see you staggering down the street, waving your sign........the smart, rational ones scatter before you can start shouting trying to get someone to pay attention
> View attachment 65082
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and that marriage cannot happen in a gay marriage.k
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet the actual reality- the real reality- not what voices in your head say- say you are delusional.
> 
> Per both the Webster and Oxford English Dictionary- marriage includes same gender couples.
> 
> And thousands of same gender couples are being married legally married all around the United States.
> 
> You are as deluded as the person who claims that a mixed race couple is not really married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never denied that people can change a definition. I do deny that they can change reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is whatever we say marriage is.
> 
> That is the reality.
> 
> In the United States, any couple issued a marriage license is in reality- married.
> 
> Those who claim otherwise are denying reality.
Click to expand...


Yes, yes, everything is what we say it is. Black can be white, man can be woman. If you have children, I hope that you live to see the world you are leaving them. 

The book "1984" is coming true. Orwell was just a little to early with the date.

When a society gets used to denying reality, it becomes so much easier for the next denial. 

*War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.*

* George Orwell*

Mark


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they see you staggering down the street, waving your sign........the smart, rational ones scatter before you can start shouting trying to get someone to pay attention
> View attachment 65082
> 
> 
> 
> and that marriage cannot happen in a gay marriage.k
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet the actual reality- the real reality- not what voices in your head say- say you are delusional.
> 
> Per both the Webster and Oxford English Dictionary- marriage includes same gender couples.
> 
> And thousands of same gender couples are being married legally married all around the United States.
> 
> You are as deluded as the person who claims that a mixed race couple is not really married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never denied that people can change a definition. I do deny that they can change reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is whatever we say marriage is.
> 
> That is the reality.
> 
> In the United States, any couple issued a marriage license is in reality- married.
> 
> Those who claim otherwise are denying reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, everything is what we say it is. Black can be white, man can be woman. If you have children, I hope that you live to see the world you are leaving them.
> 
> The book "1984" is coming true. Orwell was just a little to early with the date.
> 
> When a society gets used to denying reality, it becomes so much easier for the next denial.
> 
> *War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.*
> 
> * George Orwell*
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...



Mark.....you're stuck. As your only argument is to insist that marriage is whatever *you* say it is. And you're nobody. Your argument breaks at the same place it does with Bobs: your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.

You can't get around that.

So why would a rational person ignore the law and the dictionary and instead believe you.....citing yourself?


----------



## Silhouette

80zephyr said:


> Yes, yes, everything is what we say it is. Black can be white, man can be woman. If you have children, I hope that you live to see the world you are leaving them....






Skylar said:


> Mark.....you're stuck. As your only argument is to insist that marriage is whatever *you* say it is. And you're nobody. *Your argument breaks at the same place it does with Bobs: your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.
> 
> You can't get around that*.
> 
> So why would a rational person ignore the law and the dictionary and instead believe you.....citing yourself?



Hmmm...and YOU Skylar can't get around the poll numbers at the top of the page.  80-90%.  Society's majority defines its terms, not your little mentally ill cult.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, everything is what we say it is. Black can be white, man can be woman. If you have children, I hope that you live to see the world you are leaving them....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark.....you're stuck. As your only argument is to insist that marriage is whatever *you* say it is. And you're nobody. *Your argument breaks at the same place it does with Bobs: your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.
> 
> You can't get around that*.
> 
> So why would a rational person ignore the law and the dictionary and instead believe you.....citing yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm...and YOU Skylar can't get around the poll numbers at the top of the page.  80-90%.  Society's majority defines its terms, not your little mentally ill cult.
Click to expand...

And how does a straw poll on an obscure message board that doesn't even mention marriage have a thing to do with the definition of marriage?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

80zephyr said:


> I have never denied that people can change a definition. I do deny that they can change reality. Society now tells us that Jenner is a woman. Hell, they could even pass a law stating that "fact".
> 
> Will it change reality? No.
> 
> So, you can say gays are married, if it makes you feel better. Reality says something different.
> 
> Mark



  Of course, you're arguing with someone who probably thinks that Bruce Jenner is a woman.  Someone who is fawning all over the spectacular new outfit that the Emperor is wearing, and who will call you and I unpardonably stupid or unfit for our posts, for correctly observing that His Majesty is stark naked.  May Laurence Tureaud have compassion on him.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never denied that people can change a definition. I do deny that they can change reality. Society now tells us that Jenner is a woman. Hell, they could even pass a law stating that "fact".
> 
> Will it change reality? No.
> 
> So, you can say gays are married, if it makes you feel better. Reality says something different.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you're arguing with someone who probably thinks that Bruce Jenner is a woman.  Someone who is fawning all over the spectacular new outfit that the Emperor is wearing, and who will call you and I unpardonably stupid or unfit for our posts, for correctly observing that His Majesty is stark naked.  May Laurence Tureaud have compassion on him.
Click to expand...


Laughing.....and 50 of 50 States still perform marriages for same sex couples every day. Marriage still includes same sex couples. And you insisting that your subjective opinion is objective reality is still gloriously irrelevant to reality. 

Get used to the idea.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Skylar said:


> Mark.....you're stuck. As your only argument is to insist that marriage is whatever *you* say it is. And you're nobody. Your argument breaks at the same place it does with Bobs: your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.



  You're doing the same thing.

  The only difference is that the position that 80zephyr and I take is backed up by hard science, biology, and thousands of years of human history, while your position is backed up by nothing but a passing fad of extreme wrong-wing sexual perversion.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Dhara said:


> I suspect you have an agenda, and view about it already.


What you suspect is immaterial...
You don't have a suspicion. You have a fear. That the results of the poll will not make the liberal point of view on marriage and family structure look so well.


----------



## Skylar

thereisnospoon said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect you have an agenda, and view about it already.
> 
> 
> 
> What you suspect is immaterial...
> You don't have a suspicion. You have a fear. That the results of the poll will not make the liberal point of view on marriage and family structure look so well.
Click to expand...

 
The results of the poll don't even _mention _marriage. Nor does marriage define the gender of your parents. Recognize gay marriage or deny gays the right to marry......*same sex parents are still same sex parents. *

All denying same sex parents marriage does is guarantee that their children never have married parents. Which hurts their children and helps none. 

Which is one of the many reasons that same sex couples can now marry like anyone else.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark.....you're stuck. As your only argument is to insist that marriage is whatever *you* say it is. And you're nobody. Your argument breaks at the same place it does with Bobs: your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're doing the same thing.
> 
> The only difference is that the position that 80zephyr and I take is backed up by hard science, biology, and thousands of years of human history, while your position is backed up by nothing but a passing fad of extreme wrong-wing sexual perversion.
Click to expand...


I'm not citing me. I'm citing the law and the dictionary. Two sources that are far more objective and reality based than you desperately trying to convince us that your personal opinion defines objective reality.

Sorry, Bob.....but you're stuck. As your entire argument has degenerated into one big Begging the Question fallacy. None of which has the slightest relevance to anyone's marriage.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never denied that people can change a definition. I do deny that they can change reality. Society now tells us that Jenner is a woman. Hell, they could even pass a law stating that "fact".
> 
> Will it change reality? No.
> 
> So, you can say gays are married, if it makes you feel better. Reality says something different.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you're arguing with someone who probably thinks that Bruce Jenner is a woman.  Someone who is fawning all over the spectacular new outfit that the Emperor is wearing, and who will call you and I unpardonably stupid or unfit for our posts, for correctly observing that His Majesty is stark naked.  May Laurence Tureaud have compassion on him.
Click to expand...


I am arguing with delusional people who deny the reality of marraige.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark.....you're stuck. As your only argument is to insist that marriage is whatever *you* say it is. And you're nobody. Your argument breaks at the same place it does with Bobs: your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're doing the same thing.
> 
> The only difference is that the position that 80zephyr and I take is backed up by hard science, biology, and thousands of years of human history, while your position is backed up by nothing but a passing fad of extreme wrong-wing sexual perversion.
Click to expand...


Oh please tell us the 'hard science' that marriage is defined by?

Please do.


----------



## Inevitable

Silhouette said:


> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.


It's important.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> and that marriage cannot happen in a gay marriage.k
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the actual reality- the real reality- not what voices in your head say- say you are delusional.
> 
> Per both the Webster and Oxford English Dictionary- marriage includes same gender couples.
> 
> And thousands of same gender couples are being married legally married all around the United States.
> 
> You are as deluded as the person who claims that a mixed race couple is not really married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never denied that people can change a definition. I do deny that they can change reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is whatever we say marriage is.
> 
> That is the reality.
> 
> In the United States, any couple issued a marriage license is in reality- married.
> 
> Those who claim otherwise are denying reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, everything is what we say it is. Black can be white, man can be woman. If you have children, I hope that you live to see the world you are leaving them.
> 
> The book "1984" is coming true. Orwell was just a little to early with the date.
> 
> When a society gets used to denying reality, it becomes so much easier for the next denial.
> 
> *War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.*
> 
> * George Orwell*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mark.....you're stuck. As your only argument is to insist that marriage is whatever *you* say it is. And you're nobody. Your argument breaks at the same place it does with Bobs: your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.
> 
> You can't get around that.
> 
> So why would a rational person ignore the law and the dictionary and instead believe you.....citing yourself?
Click to expand...



For the same reason that a rational person would know that a man is not a woman, or a white person is not black.

Reality doesn't listen to the laws of man, or our definitions.

Mark


----------



## Bob Blaylock

80zephyr said:


> For the same reason that a rational person would know that a man is not a woman, or a white person is not black.
> 
> Reality doesn't listen to the laws of man, or our definitions.



  I'm now thinking of Rachel Dolezal, a woman who claimed to be black, but turns out to be white.

  Correctly, even liberals rejected her claim; and she's been recognized and treated as a fraud.  Of course, this happened around the same time that Bruce Jenner was _“coming out as a woman””_.  It all goes to show just how insane and irrational and inconsistent modern wrong-wing ideology has become.

  There is much less difference between Ms. Dolezal and a black woman, than there is between Mr, Jenner and a woman.  Both claims are insane, of course, but Ms. Dolezal's claim is substantially less insane than Mr. Jenner's, and there is certainly no rational reason to reject Ms. Dolezal's claim to be black while accepting Mr. Jenner's claim to be female.

  And of course, the idea that there can be any such thing as “marriage” between two people of the same sex, or that two people of the same sex can constitute a valid set of parents for a child, is at the same level of madness as the claims that Mr, Jenner is a woman or that Ms. Dolezal is black.


----------



## 80zephyr

Bob Blaylock said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason that a rational person would know that a man is not a woman, or a white person is not black.
> 
> Reality doesn't listen to the laws of man, or our definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm now thinking of Rachel Dolezal, a woman who claimed to be black, but turns out to be white.
> 
> Correctly, even liberals rejected her claim; and she's been recognized and treated as a fraud.  Of course, this happened around the same time that Bruce Jenner was _“coming out as a woman””_.  It all goes to show just how insane and irrational and inconsistent modern wrong-wing ideology has become.
> 
> There is much less difference between Ms. Dolezal and a black woman, than there is between Mr, Jenner and a woman.  Both claims are insane, of course, but Ms. Dolezal's claim is substantially less insane than Mr. Jenner's, and there is certainly no rational reason to reject Ms. Dolezal's claim to be black while accepting Mr. Jenner's claim to be female.
> 
> And of course, the idea that there can be any such thing as “marriage” between two people of the same sex, or that two people of the same sex can constitute a valid set of parents for a child, is at the same level of madness as the claims that Mr, Jenner is a woman or that Ms. Dolezal is black.
Click to expand...


You are correct, of course. Children are created by the mating of a man and a woman. Marriage is an acknowledgment of that coupling. Calling anything else "marriage" is like claiming Jenner actually is a woman.

Rational people understand reality.

Mark


----------



## WorldWatcher

80zephyr said:


> Children are created by the mating of a man and a woman. Marriage is an acknowledgment of that coupling.




And yet there are laws in this country that require that when certain men and women marry they must not be able to create children from that coupling.

Double standard much?


>>>>


----------



## Debra K

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly makes this a current event?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the question of removing children from the hope of either a mother or father for life as a matter of contract is a current event.
Click to expand...


There is no contract, Sil.


----------



## Silhouette

Debra K said:


> There is no contract, Sil.



No marriage contract eh?  No terms between the spouses at all?  Then why are they required to apply for a license with numerous questions?  You do understand what an implied contract is, yes?  This one's for life, one of its most fatal terms when the question of denying the implicit partners to the contract (children) either a mother or father for its expressed duration.

Understand that American law considers implicit contracts as valid and binding as written ones...


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the actual reality- the real reality- not what voices in your head say- say you are delusional.
> 
> Per both the Webster and Oxford English Dictionary- marriage includes same gender couples.
> 
> And thousands of same gender couples are being married legally married all around the United States.
> 
> You are as deluded as the person who claims that a mixed race couple is not really married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never denied that people can change a definition. I do deny that they can change reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is whatever we say marriage is.
> 
> That is the reality.
> 
> In the United States, any couple issued a marriage license is in reality- married.
> 
> Those who claim otherwise are denying reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, everything is what we say it is. Black can be white, man can be woman. If you have children, I hope that you live to see the world you are leaving them.
> 
> The book "1984" is coming true. Orwell was just a little to early with the date.
> 
> When a society gets used to denying reality, it becomes so much easier for the next denial.
> 
> *War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.*
> 
> * George Orwell*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mark.....you're stuck. As your only argument is to insist that marriage is whatever *you* say it is. And you're nobody. Your argument breaks at the same place it does with Bobs: your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.
> 
> You can't get around that.
> 
> So why would a rational person ignore the law and the dictionary and instead believe you.....citing yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason that a rational person would know that a man is not a woman, or a white person is not black.
Click to expand...


And what reason would that be? Remember, contrary to your batshit claim, definitions do change. And have.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries

You insist this does not happen, can not happen. History, reality, and the dictionary demonstrate that you're wrong. And the dictionary is quite simply a better source on the meaning of words than you are. When it comes to legal terms, the law is a better source on legal definitions than you are.

You disagree. Um, so what? Linguistically, practically and legally.....you're nobody. Nor does your personal opinion have the slightest relevance to anyone else's marriage.

Get used to the idea.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no contract, Sil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No marriage contract eh?  No terms between the spouses at all?  Then why are they required to apply for a license with numerous questions?  You do understand what an implied contract is, yes?  This one's for life, one of its most fatal terms when the question of denying the implicit partners to the contract (children) either a mother or father for its expressed duration.
Click to expand...


Show us any law or court that recognizes that a marriage of parents creates a minor contract for children.

*You can't. You made that up. *And your imagination isn't contract law, Sil. You simply have no idea what you're talking about. 



> Understand that American law considers implicit contracts as valid and binding as written ones...



Which might have some relevance if you were citing American law. *Alas, you're citing your imagination and calling it American law. *As US law simply doens't say what you do. And you know it.

Which is why when we ask you to quote US law backing any of your claims regarding children and marriage.........you try and change the subject.


----------



## Skylar

Debra K said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly makes this a current event?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the question of removing children from the hope of either a mother or father for life as a matter of contract is a current event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no contract, Sil.
Click to expand...


Ask Sil to show us the law recognizing that a marriage of parents is a minor contract for children.

She knows the law says no such thing. We know the law says no such thing. And she knows we know the law says no such thing.

Which is why she avoids the topic like it were on fire.


----------



## Debra K

Silhouette said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no contract, Sil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No marriage contract eh?  No terms between the spouses at all?  Then why are they required to apply for a license with numerous questions?  You do understand what an implied contract is, yes?  This one's for life, one of its most fatal terms when the question of denying the implicit partners to the contract (children) either a mother or father for its expressed duration.
> 
> Understand that American law considers implicit contracts as valid and binding as written ones...
Click to expand...


A contract is an agreement to do or not to do a certain thing.  Consent of the parties is essential to form a valid contract.

A marriage is a personal relationship between two consenting adults arising out of a civil contract wherein the parties consent to mutual obligations of respect, fidelity, and support.   Children, whether born or unborn, are not parties to the marriage (a personal relationship) nor the civil contract between the consenting marriage partners.  

A marriage may only be entered or dissolved as provided by law.   Thus, if state law requires the parties to obtain a marriage license, then no marriage may be entered without the required marriage license.  That legal requirement is necessary for state recognition of the marriage.   A person does not need a marriage license to procreate.  Again, a child is not a party to any contract.   

A contract may be expressed or implied.   An implied contract may be implied in fact or implied at law.   A contract implied in fact is one based on the conduct of the parties.  A contract implied at law is based on the equitable theory of unjust enrichment.  

I know what an implied contract is; you don't.  You seem to think that a child is a party to his gay parents' marriage contract, with one of the allegedly implied terms thereof is that his parents should never have entered the marriage contract in the first place because the existence of that marriage contract somehow deprives the child of some amorphous "hope" that you believe to be essential to a child's welfare.  Your contract argument is wholly frivolous.   It doesn't have any basis in law or fact.  You're motivated only by your irrational animus against homosexuals, and sadly you make that the entire focus of your existence.


----------



## Skylar

Debra K said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no contract, Sil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No marriage contract eh?  No terms between the spouses at all?  Then why are they required to apply for a license with numerous questions?  You do understand what an implied contract is, yes?  This one's for life, one of its most fatal terms when the question of denying the implicit partners to the contract (children) either a mother or father for its expressed duration.
> 
> Understand that American law considers implicit contracts as valid and binding as written ones...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A contract is an agreement to do or not to do a certain thing.  Consent of the parties is essential to form a valid contract.
> 
> A marriage is a personal relationship between two consenting adults arising out of a civil contract wherein the parties consent to mutual obligations of respect, fidelity, and support.   Children, whether born or unborn, are not parties to the marriage (a personal relationship) nor the civil contract between the consenting marriage partners.
> 
> A marriage may only be entered or dissolved as provided by law.   Thus, if state law requires the parties to obtain a marriage license, then no marriage may be entered without the required marriage license.  That legal requirement is necessary for state recognition of the marriage.   A person does not need a marriage license to procreate.  Again, a child is not a party to any contract.
> 
> A contract may be expressed or implied.   An implied contract may be implied in fact or implied at law.   A contract implied in fact is one based on the conduct of the parties.  A contract implied at law is based on the equitable theory of unjust enrichment.
> 
> I know what an implied contract is; you don't.  You seem to think that a child is a party to his gay parents' marriage contract, with one of the allegedly implied terms thereof is that his parents should never have entered the marriage contract in the first place because the existence of that marriage contract somehow deprives the child of some amorphous "hope" that you believe to be essential to a child's welfare.  Your contract argument is wholly frivolous.   It doesn't have any basis in law or fact.  You're motivated only by your irrational animus against homosexuals, and sadly you make that the entire focus of your existence.
Click to expand...



All true. And as if the poor dead horse of Sil's pseudo-legal argument hadn't been kicked enough.....the Supreme Court utterly obliterates even the concept:



			
				Obergefell v. Hodges said:
			
		

> "This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."



Affirming that the right to marriage isn't dependent on children or the ability to have them. 

All of which Sil already knows. But really hopes you don't.


----------



## Jarlaxle

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where's the, Wish I'd missed out on this hell on earth option?



Then off yourself and put us out of your misery.


----------



## 80zephyr

WorldWatcher said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children are created by the mating of a man and a woman. Marriage is an acknowledgment of that coupling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet there are laws in this country that require that when certain men and women marry they must not be able to create children from that coupling.
> 
> Double standard much?
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

Thats the problem with questions like this. People try to use exceptions to make the rule. Using exceptions, anything is possible.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never denied that people can change a definition. I do deny that they can change reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is whatever we say marriage is.
> 
> That is the reality.
> 
> In the United States, any couple issued a marriage license is in reality- married.
> 
> Those who claim otherwise are denying reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, everything is what we say it is. Black can be white, man can be woman. If you have children, I hope that you live to see the world you are leaving them.
> 
> The book "1984" is coming true. Orwell was just a little to early with the date.
> 
> When a society gets used to denying reality, it becomes so much easier for the next denial.
> 
> *War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.*
> 
> * George Orwell*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mark.....you're stuck. As your only argument is to insist that marriage is whatever *you* say it is. And you're nobody. Your argument breaks at the same place it does with Bobs: your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.
> 
> You can't get around that.
> 
> So why would a rational person ignore the law and the dictionary and instead believe you.....citing yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason that a rational person would know that a man is not a woman, or a white person is not black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what reason would that be? Remember, contrary to your batshit claim, definitions do change. And have.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> You insist this does not happen, can not happen. History, reality, and the dictionary demonstrate that you're wrong. And the dictionary is quite simply a better source on the meaning of words than you are. When it comes to legal terms, the law is a better source on legal definitions than you are.
> 
> You disagree. Um, so what? Linguistically, practically and legally.....you're nobody. Nor does your personal opinion have the slightest relevance to anyone else's marriage.
> 
> Get used to the idea.
Click to expand...



You are holding me to a position I did not take. I have laid out why reality trumps both definition and law.

I never said that society or government is reasonable or logical.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly makes this a current event?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the question of removing children from the hope of either a mother or father for life as a matter of contract is a current event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no contract, Sil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask Sil to show us the law recognizing that a marriage of parents is a minor contract for children.
> 
> She knows the law says no such thing. We know the law says no such thing. And she knows we know the law says no such thing.
> 
> Which is why she avoids the topic like it were on fire.
Click to expand...


So, if you which to neglect the child, you aren't going to be arrested? 

Mark


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Skylar said:


> And what reason would that be? Remember, contrary to your batshit claim, definitions do change. And have.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> You insist this does not happen, can not happen. History, reality, and the dictionary demonstrate that you're wrong. And the dictionary is quite simply a better source on the meaning of words than you are. When it comes to legal terms, the law is a better source on legal definitions than you are.
> 
> You disagree. Um, so what? Linguistically, practically and legally.....you're nobody. Nor does your personal opinion have the slightest relevance to anyone else's marriage.
> 
> Get used to the idea.



  Changing the language does not change the underlying reality.

  We could redefine the language so that the word “elephant” includes this creature…




…but that cannot change the underlying unalterable truth that the creature pictured above is a completely different creature from this one…




  Of course, your argument about changing language and definitions is really a defense of the concept that George Orwell defined and describes as _“Newspeak”_, which was the idea of corrupting language in order to control thought.  The idea is that if language is altered to make it difficult to express a certain belief, then it will become difficult even to form or hold that belief; conversely, if language is altered to make it easier to express a belief, then it will be easier to hold that belief.  That is exactly what you and those on your side are trying to do with “marriage”.  You cannot change what marriage actually is, but if you can make it difficult to express the distinction between genuine marriage and the immoral mockery of marriage that you are promoting, then you hope to make it difficult even to grasp the distinction.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Debra K said:


> A marriage is a personal relationship between two consenting adults arising out of a civil contract wherein the parties consent to mutual obligations of respect, fidelity, and support.   Children, whether born or unborn, are not parties to the marriage (a personal relationship) nor the civil contract between the consenting marriage partners.



  Children have no opportunity to have a direct voice in the marriage or other circumstances in which they are born, but they are most certainly affected by it, in a profound way. It is wrong—almost to the point of sociopathy—not to take their interests into account in a matter that has such a direct and serious effect on them.


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is whatever we say marriage is.
> 
> That is the reality.
> 
> In the United States, any couple issued a marriage license is in reality- married.
> 
> Those who claim otherwise are denying reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, everything is what we say it is. Black can be white, man can be woman. If you have children, I hope that you live to see the world you are leaving them.
> 
> The book "1984" is coming true. Orwell was just a little to early with the date.
> 
> When a society gets used to denying reality, it becomes so much easier for the next denial.
> 
> *War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.*
> 
> * George Orwell*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mark.....you're stuck. As your only argument is to insist that marriage is whatever *you* say it is. And you're nobody. Your argument breaks at the same place it does with Bobs: your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.
> 
> You can't get around that.
> 
> So why would a rational person ignore the law and the dictionary and instead believe you.....citing yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason that a rational person would know that a man is not a woman, or a white person is not black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what reason would that be? Remember, contrary to your batshit claim, definitions do change. And have.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> You insist this does not happen, can not happen. History, reality, and the dictionary demonstrate that you're wrong. And the dictionary is quite simply a better source on the meaning of words than you are. When it comes to legal terms, the law is a better source on legal definitions than you are.
> 
> You disagree. Um, so what? Linguistically, practically and legally.....you're nobody. Nor does your personal opinion have the slightest relevance to anyone else's marriage.
> 
> Get used to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are holding me to a position I did not take.
Click to expand...


Oh, I believe you. But this 80zephyr guy? He says you're a fucking liar:



			
				80zephyr said:
			
		

> No, definitions do not change. Stupid people tell us they change. We now have "definitions" that tell us a man is a woman, a white is a black, and a middle aged man is really a six year old girl.
> 
> Post 273
> Poll.  Please Vote.  Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?



And your position is demonstrably false. As the dictionary demonstrates, definitions change all the time. With the law demonstrating the same process over time.



> I have laid out why reality trumps both definition and law.



Nonsense. You offered a predictable Begging the Question fallacy offering us your subjective opinion and demanding it was 'reality'. Apparently because you say so. 

Sorry, Zephy.....but your argument breaks in the same place as Bob's does. Your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality. Its just your opinion. An opinion contradicted by both the dictionary and the law.

In any contest on the meaning of words between you and the dictionary, the dictionary wins. In any contest on legal definitions between you and the law, the law wins. As linguistically and legally, you're nobody. 

See how that works?


----------



## jillian

Silhouette said:


> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.



is this another of your insane homobobic threads?

i feel sorry for you. you're pathetic


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what reason would that be? Remember, contrary to your batshit claim, definitions do change. And have.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> You insist this does not happen, can not happen. History, reality, and the dictionary demonstrate that you're wrong. And the dictionary is quite simply a better source on the meaning of words than you are. When it comes to legal terms, the law is a better source on legal definitions than you are.
> 
> You disagree. Um, so what? Linguistically, practically and legally.....you're nobody. Nor does your personal opinion have the slightest relevance to anyone else's marriage.
> 
> Get used to the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Changing the language does not change the underlying reality.
> 
> We could redefine the language so that the word “elephant” includes this creature…
> 
> View attachment 65186​
> …but that cannot change the underlying unalterable truth that the creature pictured above is a completely different creature from this one…
> 
> View attachment 65189​
> Of course, your argument about changing language and definitions is really a defense of the concept that George Orwell defined and describes as _“Newspeak”_, which was the idea of corrupting language in order to control thought.  The idea is that if language is altered to make it difficult to express a certain belief, then it will become difficult even to form or hold that belief; conversely, if language is altered to make it easier to express a belief, then it will be easier to hold that belief.  That is exactly what you and those on your side are trying to do with “marriage”.  You cannot change what marriage actually is, but if you can make it difficult to express the distinction between genuine marriage and the immoral mockery of marriage that you are promoting, then you hope to make it difficult even to grasp the distinction.
Click to expand...


Your subjective opinion doesn't define reality. Killing your entire premise. As your only source...is you citing yourself. 

And of course we can change the meaning of marriage. Marriage is whatever we say it is, as people invented it. Your insistence that the meaning of words can't change over time is demonstrable nonsense.


----------



## bodecea

Anyone here who had a mother and a father think they were unimportant?  Anyone here who had a mother and a mother think they were unimportant?  Anyone here who had a father and a father think they were unimportant?


----------



## rcfieldz

My parents are no longer living. This issue is dead to me.


----------



## bucs90

bodecea said:


> Anyone here who had a mother and a father think they were unimportant?  Anyone here who had a mother and a mother think they were unimportant?  Anyone here who had a father and a father think they were unimportant?



Wasn't the question. Was it important to have both the man and woman role model present.

Example...in Modern Family...the 2 gay guys raising a daughter. She won't have a "mother". Claire and Phils kids will. Does that matter?


----------



## rcfieldz

Unrepentant sinners don't matter? Of course not.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, everything is what we say it is. Black can be white, man can be woman. If you have children, I hope that you live to see the world you are leaving them.
> 
> The book "1984" is coming true. Orwell was just a little to early with the date.
> 
> When a society gets used to denying reality, it becomes so much easier for the next denial.
> 
> *War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.*
> 
> * George Orwell*
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark.....you're stuck. As your only argument is to insist that marriage is whatever *you* say it is. And you're nobody. Your argument breaks at the same place it does with Bobs: your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.
> 
> You can't get around that.
> 
> So why would a rational person ignore the law and the dictionary and instead believe you.....citing yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason that a rational person would know that a man is not a woman, or a white person is not black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what reason would that be? Remember, contrary to your batshit claim, definitions do change. And have.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> You insist this does not happen, can not happen. History, reality, and the dictionary demonstrate that you're wrong. And the dictionary is quite simply a better source on the meaning of words than you are. When it comes to legal terms, the law is a better source on legal definitions than you are.
> 
> You disagree. Um, so what? Linguistically, practically and legally.....you're nobody. Nor does your personal opinion have the slightest relevance to anyone else's marriage.
> 
> Get used to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are holding me to a position I did not take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I believe you. But this 80zephyr guy? He says you're a fucking liar:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, definitions do not change. Stupid people tell us they change. We now have "definitions" that tell us a man is a woman, a white is a black, and a middle aged man is really a six year old girl.
> 
> Post 273
> Poll.  Please Vote.  Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your position is demonstrably false. As the dictionary demonstrates, definitions change all the time. With the law demonstrating the same process over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have laid out why reality trumps both definition and law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. You offered a predictable Begging the Question fallacy offering us your subjective opinion and demanding it was 'reality'. Apparently because you say so.
> 
> Sorry, Zephy.....but your argument breaks in the same place as Bob's does. Your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality. Its just your opinion. An opinion contradicted by both the dictionary and the law.
> 
> In any contest on the meaning of words between you and the dictionary, the dictionary wins. In any contest on legal definitions between you and the law, the law wins. As linguistically and legally, you're nobody.
> 
> See how that works?
Click to expand...


My, my, you seem upset. Like I said before, the law or the dictionary do not define reality. I can legally change the name of a rose to broccoli, but it will always and forever be a rose.

See how that works?

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

bodecea said:


> Anyone here who had a mother and a father think they were unimportant?  Anyone here who had a mother and a mother think they were unimportant?  Anyone here who had a father and a father think they were unimportant?


If you ask the wrong questions, you'll get the wrong answers.

Mark


----------



## WorldWatcher

80zephyr said:


> Children are created by the mating of a man and a woman. Marriage is an acknowledgment of that coupling.





WorldWatcher said:


> And yet there are laws in this country that require that when certain men and women marry they must not be able to create children from that coupling.
> 
> Double standard much?
> 
> 
> >>>>





80zephyr said:


> Thats the problem with questions like this. People try to use exceptions to make the rule. Using exceptions, anything is possible.
> 
> Mark



So an exception can only be made for different sex spouses because why?

The concept of equal protection under the law is that LIKE situations are examined and applied.  So here is your chance, please provide the legal justification for why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in different sex relationships should be allowed to civilly marry  and yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in same sex relationships should not be allowed to civilly marry.

Remember, you have to apply reasoning consistently, an exception applied to one situation would have to be available to the other situation.



>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

80zephyr said:


> Thats the problem with questions like this. People try to use exceptions to make the rule. Using exceptions, anything is possible.
> 
> Mark





WorldWatcher said:


> So an exception can only be made for different sex spouses because why?
> 
> *The concept of equal protection under the law is that LIKE situations are examined and applied*.  So here is your chance, please provide the legal justification for why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in different sex relationships should be allowed to civilly marry  and yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in same sex relationships should not be allowed to civilly marry.
> Remember, you have to apply reasoning consistently, an exception applied to one situation would have to be available to the other situation.



You ask the easiest questions to answer.

The rule is hetero because marriage isn't about adults.  It's about the children that states expect to arrive when two adults of opposite genders unite, regardless of their fertility or age.  It is because beyond reproduction, children need the stable matrix wherein they get both a mother and father united for their benefit for life.  That's why the rule exists and that is the description for the reason it exists.

So if there's a sterile hetero couple, the state expects they will adopt some day...not that they will, but exceptions don't run the rule as Mark just told you.  The important issue with adoptive parents or grandparents (elderly marrieds) is that there is a man functioning as a father and a woman functioning as a mother...which...as you know..."father" and "mother" don't end at conception.  It's a lifelong commitment to new beings who need guidance in the world specific to their gender and a reflection of how to deal with the opposite gender.

There is nothing "like" a father.  A lesbian for sure is not "like" a father.  There is nothing "like" a mother.  A gay man can never be a mother.

Gays can have whatever contractual situation they want with each other.  They just can't call it "marriage".  Because marriage involves children and children's stake in what we call "marriage" is a mother and father for life.  If gays have children with opposite gendered people, then they're not really gay are they if they've welcomed the opposite gender with which to procreate (lesbians who spend the night with a man or "turkey baster" a man's semen into themselves.)  What will they tell their son?  "Your dad was a turkey baster, so just live with it".  The boy walks away thinking "great, my only value as a man is to be a handful of paste that lesbians use to get children..

Great lesson for kids and their self-worth..


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> The rule is hetero because marriage isn't about adults. It's about the children that states expect to arrive when two adults of opposite genders unite, regardless of their fertility or age. It is because beyond reproduction, children need the stable matrix wherein they get both a mother and father united for their benefit for life. That's why the rule exists and that is the description for the reason it exists.



This rule of yours only exists in your imagination.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the problem with questions like this. People try to use exceptions to make the rule. Using exceptions, anything is possible.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So an exception can only be made for different sex spouses because why?
> 
> *The concept of equal protection under the law is that LIKE situations are examined and applied*.  So here is your chance, please provide the legal justification for why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in different sex relationships should be allowed to civilly marry  and yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in same sex relationships should not be allowed to civilly marry.
> Remember, you have to apply reasoning consistently, an exception applied to one situation would have to be available to the other situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ask the easiest questions to answer.
> 
> The rule is hetero because marriage isn't about adults.  It's about the children that states expect to arrive when two adults of opposite genders unite, regardless of their fertility or age.  It is because beyond reproduction, children need the stable matrix wherein they get both a mother and father united for their benefit for life.  That's why the rule exists and that is the description for the reason it exists.
Click to expand...



1.  No state requires children as part of the marriage contract.

2.  Some jurisdictions require that certain couples cannot conceive children.

3.  Denial of Civil Marriage doesn't magically make same-sex parents opposite sex parents, it just means the children of same sex couples are denied the legal protections of having married parents.


>>>>


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark.....you're stuck. As your only argument is to insist that marriage is whatever *you* say it is. And you're nobody. Your argument breaks at the same place it does with Bobs: your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.
> 
> You can't get around that.
> 
> So why would a rational person ignore the law and the dictionary and instead believe you.....citing yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason that a rational person would know that a man is not a woman, or a white person is not black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what reason would that be? Remember, contrary to your batshit claim, definitions do change. And have.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> You insist this does not happen, can not happen. History, reality, and the dictionary demonstrate that you're wrong. And the dictionary is quite simply a better source on the meaning of words than you are. When it comes to legal terms, the law is a better source on legal definitions than you are.
> 
> You disagree. Um, so what? Linguistically, practically and legally.....you're nobody. Nor does your personal opinion have the slightest relevance to anyone else's marriage.
> 
> Get used to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are holding me to a position I did not take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I believe you. But this 80zephyr guy? He says you're a fucking liar:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, definitions do not change. Stupid people tell us they change. We now have "definitions" that tell us a man is a woman, a white is a black, and a middle aged man is really a six year old girl.
> 
> Post 273
> Poll.  Please Vote.  Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your position is demonstrably false. As the dictionary demonstrates, definitions change all the time. With the law demonstrating the same process over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have laid out why reality trumps both definition and law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. You offered a predictable Begging the Question fallacy offering us your subjective opinion and demanding it was 'reality'. Apparently because you say so.
> 
> Sorry, Zephy.....but your argument breaks in the same place as Bob's does. Your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality. Its just your opinion. An opinion contradicted by both the dictionary and the law.
> 
> In any contest on the meaning of words between you and the dictionary, the dictionary wins. In any contest on legal definitions between you and the law, the law wins. As linguistically and legally, you're nobody.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My, my, you seem upset.
Click to expand...

Smiling....is that your way of telling us that you did in fact take the position that definitions do not change? Deny it again, I'll just quote you again.

If even you are going to treat your positions like meaningless garbage to be tossed on the rhetorical midden heap, surely you'll understand why we treat your positions the same way.



> Like I said before, the law or the dictionary do not define reality. I can legally change the name of a rose to broccoli, but it will always and forever be a rose.



The only thing you've offered us in 'defining reality' is your subjective opinion. Sorry, Zephy...but subjective is not objective. And you don't define the meaning of marriage.

_We do. _

You're offering you citing yourself vs. the dictionary on the meaning of words. You lose.

You're offering you citing yourself vs. the law on legal definitions. You lose.


----------



## JoeMoma

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where's the, Wish I'd missed out on this hell on earth option?


You may self abort if you like.


----------



## JoeMoma

JoeMoma said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the, Wish I'd missed out on this hell on earth option?
> 
> 
> 
> You may self abort if you like.
Click to expand...

Note: I usually would not tell that to anyone; however, I know PMH is full of shot.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the problem with questions like this. People try to use exceptions to make the rule. Using exceptions, anything is possible.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So an exception can only be made for different sex spouses because why?
> 
> *The concept of equal protection under the law is that LIKE situations are examined and applied*.  So here is your chance, please provide the legal justification for why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in different sex relationships should be allowed to civilly marry  and yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in same sex relationships should not be allowed to civilly marry.
> Remember, you have to apply reasoning consistently, an exception applied to one situation would have to be available to the other situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ask the easiest questions to answer.
> 
> The rule is hetero because marriage isn't about adults.  It's about the children that states expect to arrive when two adults of opposite genders unite, regardless of their fertility or age.  It is because beyond reproduction, children need the stable matrix wherein they get both a mother and father united for their benefit for life.  That's why the rule exists and that is the description for the reason it exists.
Click to expand...


Again, marriage doesn't define the gender of one's parents. Ending your entire argument. Recognize marriage for gays or deny gays marriage....and same sex parents are still same sex parents. Denying them marriage doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that children will never have married parents. Which hurts those children and help none.

Ending your entire argument.

Nor is the right to marry predicated on children or the ability to have them.

Ending your argument again.



> There is nothing "like" a father.  A lesbian for sure is not "like" a father.  There is nothing "like" a mother.  A gay man can never be a mother.



Really? Because when discussing single parenthood, you offered us 'hope' as the same thing as a father. Or a single parent 'not being under contract' (whatever the hell that means) as being the same thing as a father.

Sorry, Sil.....but your argument is a self contradictory mess. And even you ignore you.



> Gays can have whatever contractual situation they want with each other.  They just can't call it "marriage".  Because marriage involves children and children's stake in what we call "marriage" is a mother and father for life.  If gays have children with opposite gendered people, then they're not really gay are they if they've welcomed the opposite gender with which to procreate (lesbians who spend the night with a man or "turkey baster" a man's semen into themselves.)  What will they tell their son?  "Your dad was a turkey baster, so just live with it".  The boy walks away thinking "great, my only value as a man is to be a handful of paste that lesbians use to get children..



They can certainly call their marriages marriage. As the right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. Says who? Says the Supeme Court:



			
				Obergefell v. Hodges said:
			
		

> This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.



Ending your argument yet again. So you ignore the Supreme Court and replace their explicit findings with whatever pseudo-legal gibberish you want to imagine.

Um, Sil.....your imagination isn't a legal argument.


----------



## 80zephyr

WorldWatcher said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children are created by the mating of a man and a woman. Marriage is an acknowledgment of that coupling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet there are laws in this country that require that when certain men and women marry they must not be able to create children from that coupling.
> 
> Double standard much?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the problem with questions like this. People try to use exceptions to make the rule. Using exceptions, anything is possible.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So an exception can only be made for different sex spouses because why?
> 
> The concept of equal protection under the law is that LIKE situations are examined and applied.  So here is your chance, please provide the legal justification for why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in different sex relationships should be allowed to civilly marry  and yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in same sex relationships should not be allowed to civilly marry.
> 
> Remember, you have to apply reasoning consistently, an exception applied to one situation would have to be available to the other situation.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

Very easy. All people WERE treated equally. Any man could marry any woman. Every person in America was treated exactly the same.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason that a rational person would know that a man is not a woman, or a white person is not black.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what reason would that be? Remember, contrary to your batshit claim, definitions do change. And have.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> You insist this does not happen, can not happen. History, reality, and the dictionary demonstrate that you're wrong. And the dictionary is quite simply a better source on the meaning of words than you are. When it comes to legal terms, the law is a better source on legal definitions than you are.
> 
> You disagree. Um, so what? Linguistically, practically and legally.....you're nobody. Nor does your personal opinion have the slightest relevance to anyone else's marriage.
> 
> Get used to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are holding me to a position I did not take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I believe you. But this 80zephyr guy? He says you're a fucking liar:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, definitions do not change. Stupid people tell us they change. We now have "definitions" that tell us a man is a woman, a white is a black, and a middle aged man is really a six year old girl.
> 
> Post 273
> Poll.  Please Vote.  Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your position is demonstrably false. As the dictionary demonstrates, definitions change all the time. With the law demonstrating the same process over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have laid out why reality trumps both definition and law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. You offered a predictable Begging the Question fallacy offering us your subjective opinion and demanding it was 'reality'. Apparently because you say so.
> 
> Sorry, Zephy.....but your argument breaks in the same place as Bob's does. Your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality. Its just your opinion. An opinion contradicted by both the dictionary and the law.
> 
> In any contest on the meaning of words between you and the dictionary, the dictionary wins. In any contest on legal definitions between you and the law, the law wins. As linguistically and legally, you're nobody.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My, my, you seem upset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Smiling....is that your way of telling us that you did in fact take the position that definitions do not change? Deny it again, I'll just quote you again.
> 
> If even you are going to treat your positions like meaningless garbage to be tossed on the rhetorical midden heap, surely you'll understand why we treat your positions the same way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said before, the law or the dictionary do not define reality. I can legally change the name of a rose to broccoli, but it will always and forever be a rose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you've offered us in 'defining reality' is your subjective opinion. Sorry, Zephy...but subjective is not objective. And you don't define the meaning of marriage.
> 
> _We do. _
> 
> You're offering you citing yourself vs. the dictionary on the meaning of words. You lose.
> 
> You're offering you citing yourself vs. the law on legal definitions. You lose.
Click to expand...


It is quite impossible for me to lose. Reality does not change because the law says it does.

At least you know where you stand in regard to "newspeak". I hope your children appreciate your efforts.

Mark


----------



## sealybobo

Silhouette said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the problem with questions like this. People try to use exceptions to make the rule. Using exceptions, anything is possible.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So an exception can only be made for different sex spouses because why?
> 
> *The concept of equal protection under the law is that LIKE situations are examined and applied*.  So here is your chance, please provide the legal justification for why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in different sex relationships should be allowed to civilly marry  and yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in same sex relationships should not be allowed to civilly marry.
> Remember, you have to apply reasoning consistently, an exception applied to one situation would have to be available to the other situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ask the easiest questions to answer.
> 
> The rule is hetero because marriage isn't about adults.  It's about the children that states expect to arrive when two adults of opposite genders unite, regardless of their fertility or age.  It is because beyond reproduction, children need the stable matrix wherein they get both a mother and father united for their benefit for life.  That's why the rule exists and that is the description for the reason it exists.
> 
> So if there's a sterile hetero couple, the state expects they will adopt some day...not that they will, but exceptions don't run the rule as Mark just told you.  The important issue with adoptive parents or grandparents (elderly marrieds) is that there is a man functioning as a father and a woman functioning as a mother...which...as you know..."father" and "mother" don't end at conception.  It's a lifelong commitment to new beings who need guidance in the world specific to their gender and a reflection of how to deal with the opposite gender.
> 
> There is nothing "like" a father.  A lesbian for sure is not "like" a father.  There is nothing "like" a mother.  A gay man can never be a mother.
> 
> Gays can have whatever contractual situation they want with each other.  They just can't call it "marriage".  Because marriage involves children and children's stake in what we call "marriage" is a mother and father for life.  If gays have children with opposite gendered people, then they're not really gay are they if they've welcomed the opposite gender with which to procreate (lesbians who spend the night with a man or "turkey baster" a man's semen into themselves.)  What will they tell their son?  "Your dad was a turkey baster, so just live with it".  The boy walks away thinking "great, my only value as a man is to be a handful of paste that lesbians use to get children..
> 
> Great lesson for kids and their self-worth..
Click to expand...

Two dads are better than 1 mom. Do you realize the number one reason we have so much crime and poverty in this country is because too many men aren't fathering their kids????

We have no problems coming from gay parents who take an active role in their children's lives. Did you have 2 parents in your home?


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what reason would that be? Remember, contrary to your batshit claim, definitions do change. And have.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> You insist this does not happen, can not happen. History, reality, and the dictionary demonstrate that you're wrong. And the dictionary is quite simply a better source on the meaning of words than you are. When it comes to legal terms, the law is a better source on legal definitions than you are.
> 
> You disagree. Um, so what? Linguistically, practically and legally.....you're nobody. Nor does your personal opinion have the slightest relevance to anyone else's marriage.
> 
> Get used to the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are holding me to a position I did not take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I believe you. But this 80zephyr guy? He says you're a fucking liar:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, definitions do not change. Stupid people tell us they change. We now have "definitions" that tell us a man is a woman, a white is a black, and a middle aged man is really a six year old girl.
> 
> Post 273
> Poll.  Please Vote.  Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your position is demonstrably false. As the dictionary demonstrates, definitions change all the time. With the law demonstrating the same process over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have laid out why reality trumps both definition and law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. You offered a predictable Begging the Question fallacy offering us your subjective opinion and demanding it was 'reality'. Apparently because you say so.
> 
> Sorry, Zephy.....but your argument breaks in the same place as Bob's does. Your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality. Its just your opinion. An opinion contradicted by both the dictionary and the law.
> 
> In any contest on the meaning of words between you and the dictionary, the dictionary wins. In any contest on legal definitions between you and the law, the law wins. As linguistically and legally, you're nobody.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My, my, you seem upset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Smiling....is that your way of telling us that you did in fact take the position that definitions do not change? Deny it again, I'll just quote you again.
> 
> If even you are going to treat your positions like meaningless garbage to be tossed on the rhetorical midden heap, surely you'll understand why we treat your positions the same way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said before, the law or the dictionary do not define reality. I can legally change the name of a rose to broccoli, but it will always and forever be a rose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you've offered us in 'defining reality' is your subjective opinion. Sorry, Zephy...but subjective is not objective. And you don't define the meaning of marriage.
> 
> _We do. _
> 
> You're offering you citing yourself vs. the dictionary on the meaning of words. You lose.
> 
> You're offering you citing yourself vs. the law on legal definitions. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is quite impossible for me to lose. Reality does not change because the law says it does.
Click to expand...


Except that you already did. As the only thing you've offered to define 'reality'....is your subjective opinion.

And you're nobody.

Is you citing your subjective opinion as defining objective reality all you have? If so.....that was easy.


----------



## WorldWatcher

80zephyr said:


> Very easy. All people WERE treated equally. Any man could marry any woman. Every person in America was treated exactly the same.
> 
> Mark




Virginia tried that logic in the Loving case.

Didn't flush then either.


>>>>


----------



## rcfieldz

Ugh...you wouldn't have a life without a mother and father.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

WorldWatcher said:


> *The concept of equal protection under the law is that LIKE situations are examined and applied.*  So here is your chance, please provide the legal justification for why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in different sex relationships should be allowed to civilly marry  and yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in same sex relationships should not be allowed to civilly marry.
> 
> Remember, you have to apply reasoning consistently, an exception applied to one situation would have to be available to the other situation.



  A same-sex homosexual couple is not the same thing as a heterosexual coupling between a man and a woman.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Skylar said:


> Again, marriage doesn't define the gender of one's parents.



  It doesn't have to.  Biology does that.  It takes both a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child.

  Marriage reflects this immutable biological fact, and the needs of society and of children with regard to the responsibility of fathers and mothers for their children and to each other.


----------



## skye

I did have a mother and a father and grandparent on both sides

My life was beautiful....so amazing and protected....the best....

And look how I turned out  

LOL joking.... just joking


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, marriage doesn't define the gender of one's parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to.  Biology does that.  It takes both a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child.
Click to expand...


And as adoption demonstrates, the ability to concieve a child isn't what makes you that child's parents. A lesson reaffirmed when one parent is infertile....and they have kids by other means. 

Unless you're going to argue that adoptive parents aren't parents....your argument is already DOA.



> Marriage reflects this immutable biological fact, and the needs of society and of children with regard to the responsibility of fathers and mothers for their children and to each other.



Except that it doesn't. No marriage requires children or is predicated on them. And if you do have kids, there's no requirement that they be genetically related to you in order to be their parents.

Marriage is whatever say it is. As we invented it.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The concept of equal protection under the law is that LIKE situations are examined and applied.*  So here is your chance, please provide the legal justification for why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in different sex relationships should be allowed to civilly marry  and yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in same sex relationships should not be allowed to civilly marry.
> 
> Remember, you have to apply reasoning consistently, an exception applied to one situation would have to be available to the other situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A same-sex homosexual couple is not the same thing as a heterosexual coupling between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...


As far as marriage is concerned, they are the same. In 50 of 50 States, there's no such thing as same sex marriage. There's just marriage.

Which includes same sex and opposite sex couples.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Bob Blaylock said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The concept of equal protection under the law is that LIKE situations are examined and applied.*  So here is your chance, please provide the legal justification for why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in different sex relationships should be allowed to civilly marry  and yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in same sex relationships should not be allowed to civilly marry.
> 
> Remember, you have to apply reasoning consistently, an exception applied to one situation would have to be available to the other situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A same-sex homosexual couple is not the same thing as a heterosexual coupling between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...


Of course not.  One is two people.  The "same sex homosexual couple".  The other is a sex act, assuming you mean by "coupling" the man inserting a penis into a vagina.  Now if you mean oral or anal "coupling", there isn't much difference.

Now from a legal standpoint there is no difference between the Civil Marriage of a same-sex couple and a different-sex couple.


>>>>


----------



## skye

I was happy ...my childhood was perfect....mom ..dad ....extended family

Protection....love ...beauty.....happiness 

I miss the past

I have many photographs ....it's so nice 

all dead now

still

my roots are there ...solid normal.


----------



## skye

I feel so sorry for these poor children nowadays...with 2 moms or three dads ....you know

Had that been my case...I would have turned into a serial killer.....

God bless these   poor people...what a life.


----------



## 80zephyr

sealybobo said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the problem with questions like this. People try to use exceptions to make the rule. Using exceptions, anything is possible.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So an exception can only be made for different sex spouses because why?
> 
> *The concept of equal protection under the law is that LIKE situations are examined and applied*.  So here is your chance, please provide the legal justification for why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in different sex relationships should be allowed to civilly marry  and yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in same sex relationships should not be allowed to civilly marry.
> Remember, you have to apply reasoning consistently, an exception applied to one situation would have to be available to the other situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ask the easiest questions to answer.
> 
> The rule is hetero because marriage isn't about adults.  It's about the children that states expect to arrive when two adults of opposite genders unite, regardless of their fertility or age.  It is because beyond reproduction, children need the stable matrix wherein they get both a mother and father united for their benefit for life.  That's why the rule exists and that is the description for the reason it exists.
> 
> So if there's a sterile hetero couple, the state expects they will adopt some day...not that they will, but exceptions don't run the rule as Mark just told you.  The important issue with adoptive parents or grandparents (elderly marrieds) is that there is a man functioning as a father and a woman functioning as a mother...which...as you know..."father" and "mother" don't end at conception.  It's a lifelong commitment to new beings who need guidance in the world specific to their gender and a reflection of how to deal with the opposite gender.
> 
> There is nothing "like" a father.  A lesbian for sure is not "like" a father.  There is nothing "like" a mother.  A gay man can never be a mother.
> 
> Gays can have whatever contractual situation they want with each other.  They just can't call it "marriage".  Because marriage involves children and children's stake in what we call "marriage" is a mother and father for life.  If gays have children with opposite gendered people, then they're not really gay are they if they've welcomed the opposite gender with which to procreate (lesbians who spend the night with a man or "turkey baster" a man's semen into themselves.)  What will they tell their son?  "Your dad was a turkey baster, so just live with it".  The boy walks away thinking "great, my only value as a man is to be a handful of paste that lesbians use to get children..
> 
> Great lesson for kids and their self-worth..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two dads are better than 1 mom. Do you realize the number one reason we have so much crime and poverty in this country is because too many men aren't fathering their kids????
> 
> We have no problems coming from gay parents who take an active role in their children's lives. Did you have 2 parents in your home?
Click to expand...


Two dads are better than one mom? Well then, wouldn't 3 dads be better? How about 4?

People continue to ask the wrong questions.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are holding me to a position I did not take.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I believe you. But this 80zephyr guy? He says you're a fucking liar:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, definitions do not change. Stupid people tell us they change. We now have "definitions" that tell us a man is a woman, a white is a black, and a middle aged man is really a six year old girl.
> 
> Post 273
> Poll.  Please Vote.  Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your position is demonstrably false. As the dictionary demonstrates, definitions change all the time. With the law demonstrating the same process over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have laid out why reality trumps both definition and law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. You offered a predictable Begging the Question fallacy offering us your subjective opinion and demanding it was 'reality'. Apparently because you say so.
> 
> Sorry, Zephy.....but your argument breaks in the same place as Bob's does. Your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality. Its just your opinion. An opinion contradicted by both the dictionary and the law.
> 
> In any contest on the meaning of words between you and the dictionary, the dictionary wins. In any contest on legal definitions between you and the law, the law wins. As linguistically and legally, you're nobody.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My, my, you seem upset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Smiling....is that your way of telling us that you did in fact take the position that definitions do not change? Deny it again, I'll just quote you again.
> 
> If even you are going to treat your positions like meaningless garbage to be tossed on the rhetorical midden heap, surely you'll understand why we treat your positions the same way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said before, the law or the dictionary do not define reality. I can legally change the name of a rose to broccoli, but it will always and forever be a rose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you've offered us in 'defining reality' is your subjective opinion. Sorry, Zephy...but subjective is not objective. And you don't define the meaning of marriage.
> 
> _We do. _
> 
> You're offering you citing yourself vs. the dictionary on the meaning of words. You lose.
> 
> You're offering you citing yourself vs. the law on legal definitions. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is quite impossible for me to lose. Reality does not change because the law says it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that you already did. As the only thing you've offered to define 'reality'....is your subjective opinion.
> 
> And you're nobody.
> 
> Is you citing your subjective opinion as defining objective reality all you have? If so.....that was easy.
Click to expand...



Sorry, I am rational enough to understand "newspeak".  And I reject it because it is not reality.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

WorldWatcher said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very easy. All people WERE treated equally. Any man could marry any woman. Every person in America was treated exactly the same.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia tried that logic in the Loving case.
> 
> Didn't flush then either.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...



Nope. In that case everyone was not equal. 

Mark


----------



## sealybobo

80zephyr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the problem with questions like this. People try to use exceptions to make the rule. Using exceptions, anything is possible.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So an exception can only be made for different sex spouses because why?
> 
> *The concept of equal protection under the law is that LIKE situations are examined and applied*.  So here is your chance, please provide the legal justification for why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in different sex relationships should be allowed to civilly marry  and yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in same sex relationships should not be allowed to civilly marry.
> Remember, you have to apply reasoning consistently, an exception applied to one situation would have to be available to the other situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ask the easiest questions to answer.
> 
> The rule is hetero because marriage isn't about adults.  It's about the children that states expect to arrive when two adults of opposite genders unite, regardless of their fertility or age.  It is because beyond reproduction, children need the stable matrix wherein they get both a mother and father united for their benefit for life.  That's why the rule exists and that is the description for the reason it exists.
> 
> So if there's a sterile hetero couple, the state expects they will adopt some day...not that they will, but exceptions don't run the rule as Mark just told you.  The important issue with adoptive parents or grandparents (elderly marrieds) is that there is a man functioning as a father and a woman functioning as a mother...which...as you know..."father" and "mother" don't end at conception.  It's a lifelong commitment to new beings who need guidance in the world specific to their gender and a reflection of how to deal with the opposite gender.
> 
> There is nothing "like" a father.  A lesbian for sure is not "like" a father.  There is nothing "like" a mother.  A gay man can never be a mother.
> 
> Gays can have whatever contractual situation they want with each other.  They just can't call it "marriage".  Because marriage involves children and children's stake in what we call "marriage" is a mother and father for life.  If gays have children with opposite gendered people, then they're not really gay are they if they've welcomed the opposite gender with which to procreate (lesbians who spend the night with a man or "turkey baster" a man's semen into themselves.)  What will they tell their son?  "Your dad was a turkey baster, so just live with it".  The boy walks away thinking "great, my only value as a man is to be a handful of paste that lesbians use to get children..
> 
> Great lesson for kids and their self-worth..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two dads are better than 1 mom. Do you realize the number one reason we have so much crime and poverty in this country is because too many men aren't fathering their kids????
> 
> We have no problems coming from gay parents who take an active role in their children's lives. Did you have 2 parents in your home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two dads are better than one mom? Well then, wouldn't 3 dads be better? How about 4?
> 
> People continue to ask the wrong questions.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Like you? You just did what you accused others of doing. You are asking the wrong question.

A. Why are there babies or kids sitting waiting to be adopted?
B. Would you rather they stay in foster homes than live with two loving gay dudes?
C. Where is crime and poverty coming from? Is it coming from young men and women who were raised by gays or single moms and no dad?

Heteros have their own problems to solve and they are bigger than this. But it's easier to stay in denial about yourselves and instead blame liberals blacks Muslims or gays


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, marriage doesn't define the gender of one's parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to.  Biology does that.  It takes both a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as adoption demonstrates, the ability to concieve a child isn't what makes you that child's parents. A lesson reaffirmed when one parent is infertile....and they have kids by other means.
> 
> Unless you're going to argue that adoptive parents aren't parents....your argument is already DOA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage reflects this immutable biological fact, and the needs of society and of children with regard to the responsibility of fathers and mothers for their children and to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that it doesn't. No marriage requires children or is predicated on them. And if you do have kids, there's no requirement that they be genetically related to you in order to be their parents.
> 
> Marriage is whatever say it is. As we invented it.
Click to expand...


Marriage is what we say it is? In reality then, EVERYTHING is what we say it is. The only law against murder is because we "say" that it is illegal and the killer will be punished. Everything we do is because it is "what we say it is" All of morality, all of what is right or wrong is a human construct. 

Orwell has your kind down pat.

*War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.*

*George Orwell*

Mark


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I believe you. But this 80zephyr guy? He says you're a fucking liar:
> 
> And your position is demonstrably false. As the dictionary demonstrates, definitions change all the time. With the law demonstrating the same process over time.
> 
> Nonsense. You offered a predictable Begging the Question fallacy offering us your subjective opinion and demanding it was 'reality'. Apparently because you say so.
> 
> Sorry, Zephy.....but your argument breaks in the same place as Bob's does. Your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality. Its just your opinion. An opinion contradicted by both the dictionary and the law.
> 
> In any contest on the meaning of words between you and the dictionary, the dictionary wins. In any contest on legal definitions between you and the law, the law wins. As linguistically and legally, you're nobody.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My, my, you seem upset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Smiling....is that your way of telling us that you did in fact take the position that definitions do not change? Deny it again, I'll just quote you again.
> 
> If even you are going to treat your positions like meaningless garbage to be tossed on the rhetorical midden heap, surely you'll understand why we treat your positions the same way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said before, the law or the dictionary do not define reality. I can legally change the name of a rose to broccoli, but it will always and forever be a rose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you've offered us in 'defining reality' is your subjective opinion. Sorry, Zephy...but subjective is not objective. And you don't define the meaning of marriage.
> 
> _We do. _
> 
> You're offering you citing yourself vs. the dictionary on the meaning of words. You lose.
> 
> You're offering you citing yourself vs. the law on legal definitions. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is quite impossible for me to lose. Reality does not change because the law says it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that you already did. As the only thing you've offered to define 'reality'....is your subjective opinion.
> 
> And you're nobody.
> 
> Is you citing your subjective opinion as defining objective reality all you have? If so.....that was easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I am rational enough to understand "newspeak".  And I reject it because it is not reality.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Sorry, Mark. But your'e wildly irrational. As you still think that your subjective opinion defines objective reality.

Contrary to your hapless claims, definitions do change. All the time. The law changes. All the time. And your refusal to acknowledge either really has no relevance to the meaning of words or legal definitions. As subjective isn't objective.

See how that works?


----------



## sealybobo

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, marriage doesn't define the gender of one's parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to.  Biology does that.  It takes both a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as adoption demonstrates, the ability to concieve a child isn't what makes you that child's parents. A lesson reaffirmed when one parent is infertile....and they have kids by other means.
> 
> Unless you're going to argue that adoptive parents aren't parents....your argument is already DOA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage reflects this immutable biological fact, and the needs of society and of children with regard to the responsibility of fathers and mothers for their children and to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that it doesn't. No marriage requires children or is predicated on them. And if you do have kids, there's no requirement that they be genetically related to you in order to be their parents.
> 
> Marriage is whatever say it is. As we invented it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is what we say it is? In reality then, EVERYTHING is what we say it is. The only law against murder is because we "say" that it is illegal and the killer will be punished. Everything we do is because it is "what we say it is" All of morality, all of what is right or wrong is a human construct.
> 
> Orwell has your kind down pat.
> 
> *War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.*
> 
> *George Orwell*
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

We humans do make the rules.


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, marriage doesn't define the gender of one's parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to.  Biology does that.  It takes both a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as adoption demonstrates, the ability to concieve a child isn't what makes you that child's parents. A lesson reaffirmed when one parent is infertile....and they have kids by other means.
> 
> Unless you're going to argue that adoptive parents aren't parents....your argument is already DOA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage reflects this immutable biological fact, and the needs of society and of children with regard to the responsibility of fathers and mothers for their children and to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that it doesn't. No marriage requires children or is predicated on them. And if you do have kids, there's no requirement that they be genetically related to you in order to be their parents.
> 
> Marriage is whatever say it is. As we invented it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is what we say it is?
Click to expand...


Yup. We created marriage, we define it. It changes as our needs change. At certain times it included multiple women and one man. Other times, it didn't include interracial couples. At other times, women were considered property in marriage.

And now it includes one man and one woman in an equal partnership. Or one man and one man in an equal partnership. Or one woman and one woman in an equal partnership.

You disagree. Um, so? You don't define marriage. _We do.
_


> The only law against murder is because we "say" that it is illegal and the killer will be punished. Everything we do is because it is "what we say it is" All of morality, all of what is right or wrong is a human construct.



Um, Zephy.....marriage isn't murder. And murder has all sorts of exceptions....that we as a society decide. Killing in self defense isn't murder under our laws. Killing in defense of another isn't murder under our laws. Killing in wars isn't murder under our laws.

And those exceptions differ from society to society. In Christianity's past, killing heritics wasn't murder. Burning witches wasn't murder. Killing jews who wouldn't convert wasn't murder. Killing homosexuals wasn't murder. 

They all are now. 
_
But tell us again how 'definitions do not change'. We could all use another giggle. _


----------



## 80zephyr

sealybobo said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the problem with questions like this. People try to use exceptions to make the rule. Using exceptions, anything is possible.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So an exception can only be made for different sex spouses because why?
> 
> *The concept of equal protection under the law is that LIKE situations are examined and applied*.  So here is your chance, please provide the legal justification for why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in different sex relationships should be allowed to civilly marry  and yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in same sex relationships should not be allowed to civilly marry.
> Remember, you have to apply reasoning consistently, an exception applied to one situation would have to be available to the other situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ask the easiest questions to answer.
> 
> The rule is hetero because marriage isn't about adults.  It's about the children that states expect to arrive when two adults of opposite genders unite, regardless of their fertility or age.  It is because beyond reproduction, children need the stable matrix wherein they get both a mother and father united for their benefit for life.  That's why the rule exists and that is the description for the reason it exists.
> 
> So if there's a sterile hetero couple, the state expects they will adopt some day...not that they will, but exceptions don't run the rule as Mark just told you.  The important issue with adoptive parents or grandparents (elderly marrieds) is that there is a man functioning as a father and a woman functioning as a mother...which...as you know..."father" and "mother" don't end at conception.  It's a lifelong commitment to new beings who need guidance in the world specific to their gender and a reflection of how to deal with the opposite gender.
> 
> There is nothing "like" a father.  A lesbian for sure is not "like" a father.  There is nothing "like" a mother.  A gay man can never be a mother.
> 
> Gays can have whatever contractual situation they want with each other.  They just can't call it "marriage".  Because marriage involves children and children's stake in what we call "marriage" is a mother and father for life.  If gays have children with opposite gendered people, then they're not really gay are they if they've welcomed the opposite gender with which to procreate (lesbians who spend the night with a man or "turkey baster" a man's semen into themselves.)  What will they tell their son?  "Your dad was a turkey baster, so just live with it".  The boy walks away thinking "great, my only value as a man is to be a handful of paste that lesbians use to get children..
> 
> Great lesson for kids and their self-worth..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two dads are better than 1 mom. Do you realize the number one reason we have so much crime and poverty in this country is because too many men aren't fathering their kids????
> 
> We have no problems coming from gay parents who take an active role in their children's lives. Did you have 2 parents in your home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two dads are better than one mom? Well then, wouldn't 3 dads be better? How about 4?
> 
> People continue to ask the wrong questions.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like you? You just did what you accused others of doing. You are asking the wrong question.
> 
> A. Why are there babies or kids sitting waiting to be adopted?
> B. Would you rather they stay in foster homes than live with two loving gay dudes?
> C. Where is crime and poverty coming from? Is it coming from young men and women who were raised by gays or single moms and no dad?
> 
> Heteros have their own problems to solve and they are bigger than this. But it's easier to stay in denial about yourselves and instead blame liberals blacks Muslims or gays
Click to expand...


Yes, people have many problems today. Back in the 1950's divorce and broken homes were much rarer, Then the "enlightened" among us took away the taboo of divorce, and made it easy to get. Shacking up became acceptable as well.

And then, when the system broke, people like you come around and tell us that "its not so great" anyways, so why don't we just let it crumble even more.

Ruining our society even more will not solve our problems. Why not try to fix it instead?

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

sealybobo said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, marriage doesn't define the gender of one's parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to.  Biology does that.  It takes both a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as adoption demonstrates, the ability to concieve a child isn't what makes you that child's parents. A lesson reaffirmed when one parent is infertile....and they have kids by other means.
> 
> Unless you're going to argue that adoptive parents aren't parents....your argument is already DOA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage reflects this immutable biological fact, and the needs of society and of children with regard to the responsibility of fathers and mothers for their children and to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that it doesn't. No marriage requires children or is predicated on them. And if you do have kids, there's no requirement that they be genetically related to you in order to be their parents.
> 
> Marriage is whatever say it is. As we invented it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is what we say it is? In reality then, EVERYTHING is what we say it is. The only law against murder is because we "say" that it is illegal and the killer will be punished. Everything we do is because it is "what we say it is" All of morality, all of what is right or wrong is a human construct.
> 
> Orwell has your kind down pat.
> 
> *War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.*
> 
> *George Orwell*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We humans do make the rules.
Click to expand...



Yes, we do, but not all the time. The laws of nature don't change.  Would you be happy if murder or pedophilia was legalized? Do you feel it would be a help or a hindrance to the human condition.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, marriage doesn't define the gender of one's parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to.  Biology does that.  It takes both a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as adoption demonstrates, the ability to concieve a child isn't what makes you that child's parents. A lesson reaffirmed when one parent is infertile....and they have kids by other means.
> 
> Unless you're going to argue that adoptive parents aren't parents....your argument is already DOA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage reflects this immutable biological fact, and the needs of society and of children with regard to the responsibility of fathers and mothers for their children and to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that it doesn't. No marriage requires children or is predicated on them. And if you do have kids, there's no requirement that they be genetically related to you in order to be their parents.
> 
> Marriage is whatever say it is. As we invented it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is what we say it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. We created marriage, we define it. It changes as our needs change. At certain times it included multiple women and one man. Other times, it didn't include interracial couples. At other times, women were considered property in marriage.
> 
> And now it includes one man and one woman in an equal partnership. Or one man and one man in an equal partnership. Or one woman and one woman in an equal partnership.
> 
> You disagree. Um, so? You don't define marriage. _We do._
Click to expand...


Nature defines marriage. We can lie about it to ourselves, like you are, now.

Mark


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, marriage doesn't define the gender of one's parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to.  Biology does that.  It takes both a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as adoption demonstrates, the ability to concieve a child isn't what makes you that child's parents. A lesson reaffirmed when one parent is infertile....and they have kids by other means.
> 
> Unless you're going to argue that adoptive parents aren't parents....your argument is already DOA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage reflects this immutable biological fact, and the needs of society and of children with regard to the responsibility of fathers and mothers for their children and to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that it doesn't. No marriage requires children or is predicated on them. And if you do have kids, there's no requirement that they be genetically related to you in order to be their parents.
> 
> Marriage is whatever say it is. As we invented it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is what we say it is? In reality then, EVERYTHING is what we say it is. The only law against murder is because we "say" that it is illegal and the killer will be punished. Everything we do is because it is "what we say it is" All of morality, all of what is right or wrong is a human construct.
> 
> Orwell has your kind down pat.
> 
> *War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.*
> 
> *George Orwell*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We humans do make the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do, but not all the time. The laws of nature don't change.  Would you be happy if murder or pedophilia was legalized? Do you feel it would be a help or a hindrance to the human condition.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Laughing.....you claim to be the definitive arbiter of reality, the meaning of words, the dictionary and now *nature*? 

Um, no Mark. You're none of those things. Your subjective opinion doesn't define the laws of 'nature' anymore than it does the meaning of marriage or 'reality'. Its still just your opinion. Which defines nothing objectively. 

You can't get around that.


----------



## bodecea

skye said:


> I feel so sorry for these poor children nowadays...with 2 moms or three dads ....you know
> 
> Had that been my case...I would have turned into a serial killer.....
> 
> God bless these   poor people...what a life.


How do we know you are not a serial killer now.


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, marriage doesn't define the gender of one's parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to.  Biology does that.  It takes both a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as adoption demonstrates, the ability to concieve a child isn't what makes you that child's parents. A lesson reaffirmed when one parent is infertile....and they have kids by other means.
> 
> Unless you're going to argue that adoptive parents aren't parents....your argument is already DOA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage reflects this immutable biological fact, and the needs of society and of children with regard to the responsibility of fathers and mothers for their children and to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that it doesn't. No marriage requires children or is predicated on them. And if you do have kids, there's no requirement that they be genetically related to you in order to be their parents.
> 
> Marriage is whatever say it is. As we invented it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is what we say it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. We created marriage, we define it. It changes as our needs change. At certain times it included multiple women and one man. Other times, it didn't include interracial couples. At other times, women were considered property in marriage.
> 
> And now it includes one man and one woman in an equal partnership. Or one man and one man in an equal partnership. Or one woman and one woman in an equal partnership.
> 
> You disagree. Um, so? You don't define marriage. _We do._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature defines marriage. We can lie about it to ourselves, like you are, now.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Says who? There's you, making shit up and pretending to speak for nature. And.......

Nope, its just you. And you're nobody. Sorry, Mark...but your argument keeps breaking in the exact same place: your subjective opinions don't define objective reality. 

Laughing....there isn't even marriage outside of human societies. We invented it. Not 'nature'. And it is whatever we decide it is. As its our invention created for our benefit. With its definition changing as our needs change. 

But tell us again how 'definitions do not change'. Its adorable.


----------



## Jackson

I had both parents.  They did not divorce and the strife was terrible.  I prayed for them to divorce.


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> My, my, you seem upset.
> 
> 
> 
> Smiling....is that your way of telling us that you did in fact take the position that definitions do not change? Deny it again, I'll just quote you again.
> 
> If even you are going to treat your positions like meaningless garbage to be tossed on the rhetorical midden heap, surely you'll understand why we treat your positions the same way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said before, the law or the dictionary do not define reality. I can legally change the name of a rose to broccoli, but it will always and forever be a rose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you've offered us in 'defining reality' is your subjective opinion. Sorry, Zephy...but subjective is not objective. And you don't define the meaning of marriage.
> 
> _We do. _
> 
> You're offering you citing yourself vs. the dictionary on the meaning of words. You lose.
> 
> You're offering you citing yourself vs. the law on legal definitions. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is quite impossible for me to lose. Reality does not change because the law says it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that you already did. As the only thing you've offered to define 'reality'....is your subjective opinion.
> 
> And you're nobody.
> 
> Is you citing your subjective opinion as defining objective reality all you have? If so.....that was easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I am rational enough to understand "newspeak".  And I reject it because it is not reality.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Mark. But your'e wildly irrational. As you still think that your subjective opinion defines objective reality.
> 
> Contrary to your hapless claims, definitions do change. All the time. The law changes. All the time. And your refusal to acknowledge either really has no relevance to the meaning of words or legal definitions. As subjective isn't objective.
> 
> See how that works?
Click to expand...


You can call an elephant an ant. Make it legal and everything. And my subjective bleating will have no affect on the legal definition.

Of course, we both know it changes nothing.

Mark


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smiling....is that your way of telling us that you did in fact take the position that definitions do not change? Deny it again, I'll just quote you again.
> 
> If even you are going to treat your positions like meaningless garbage to be tossed on the rhetorical midden heap, surely you'll understand why we treat your positions the same way.
> 
> The only thing you've offered us in 'defining reality' is your subjective opinion. Sorry, Zephy...but subjective is not objective. And you don't define the meaning of marriage.
> 
> _We do. _
> 
> You're offering you citing yourself vs. the dictionary on the meaning of words. You lose.
> 
> You're offering you citing yourself vs. the law on legal definitions. You lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite impossible for me to lose. Reality does not change because the law says it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that you already did. As the only thing you've offered to define 'reality'....is your subjective opinion.
> 
> And you're nobody.
> 
> Is you citing your subjective opinion as defining objective reality all you have? If so.....that was easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I am rational enough to understand "newspeak".  And I reject it because it is not reality.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Mark. But your'e wildly irrational. As you still think that your subjective opinion defines objective reality.
> 
> Contrary to your hapless claims, definitions do change. All the time. The law changes. All the time. And your refusal to acknowledge either really has no relevance to the meaning of words or legal definitions. As subjective isn't objective.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can call an elephant an ant. Make it legal and everything. And my subjective bleating will have no affect on the legal definition.
> 
> Of course, we both know it changes nothing.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


You can call whatever you want whatever you like. Your subjective opinion still doesn't define objective reality. And you citing yourself is all you have.

Meanwhile, marriage is whatever we agree it is. We invented the institution. We invented the word. We invented the laws surrounding them. And each is whatever we decide it is. 

You're functionally irrelevant to this entire process. As we make these decisions. Not you.


----------



## sealybobo

80zephyr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, marriage doesn't define the gender of one's parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to.  Biology does that.  It takes both a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as adoption demonstrates, the ability to concieve a child isn't what makes you that child's parents. A lesson reaffirmed when one parent is infertile....and they have kids by other means.
> 
> Unless you're going to argue that adoptive parents aren't parents....your argument is already DOA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage reflects this immutable biological fact, and the needs of society and of children with regard to the responsibility of fathers and mothers for their children and to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that it doesn't. No marriage requires children or is predicated on them. And if you do have kids, there's no requirement that they be genetically related to you in order to be their parents.
> 
> Marriage is whatever say it is. As we invented it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is what we say it is? In reality then, EVERYTHING is what we say it is. The only law against murder is because we "say" that it is illegal and the killer will be punished. Everything we do is because it is "what we say it is" All of morality, all of what is right or wrong is a human construct.
> 
> Orwell has your kind down pat.
> 
> *War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.*
> 
> *George Orwell*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We humans do make the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do, but not all the time. The laws of nature don't change.  Would you be happy if murder or pedophilia was legalized? Do you feel it would be a help or a hindrance to the human condition.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Im glad I don't live in a society that condolns those things but I don't like gay people having to live in the closet. They are who they are. Like Peter Griffin said I like my beer cold and my homos flaming. 

Sorry, the homosexual is one of many reasons I determined Christianity is just another ancient religion written by homophobic men.


----------



## sealybobo

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smiling....is that your way of telling us that you did in fact take the position that definitions do not change? Deny it again, I'll just quote you again.
> 
> If even you are going to treat your positions like meaningless garbage to be tossed on the rhetorical midden heap, surely you'll understand why we treat your positions the same way.
> 
> The only thing you've offered us in 'defining reality' is your subjective opinion. Sorry, Zephy...but subjective is not objective. And you don't define the meaning of marriage.
> 
> _We do. _
> 
> You're offering you citing yourself vs. the dictionary on the meaning of words. You lose.
> 
> You're offering you citing yourself vs. the law on legal definitions. You lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite impossible for me to lose. Reality does not change because the law says it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that you already did. As the only thing you've offered to define 'reality'....is your subjective opinion.
> 
> And you're nobody.
> 
> Is you citing your subjective opinion as defining objective reality all you have? If so.....that was easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I am rational enough to understand "newspeak".  And I reject it because it is not reality.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Mark. But your'e wildly irrational. As you still think that your subjective opinion defines objective reality.
> 
> Contrary to your hapless claims, definitions do change. All the time. The law changes. All the time. And your refusal to acknowledge either really has no relevance to the meaning of words or legal definitions. As subjective isn't objective.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can call an elephant an ant. Make it legal and everything. And my subjective bleating will have no affect on the legal definition.
> 
> Of course, we both know it changes nothing.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

The definition itself will change. That's everything.

No one in 200 years will care what you or Jesus said


----------



## Skylar

sealybobo said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite impossible for me to lose. Reality does not change because the law says it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that you already did. As the only thing you've offered to define 'reality'....is your subjective opinion.
> 
> And you're nobody.
> 
> Is you citing your subjective opinion as defining objective reality all you have? If so.....that was easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I am rational enough to understand "newspeak".  And I reject it because it is not reality.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Mark. But your'e wildly irrational. As you still think that your subjective opinion defines objective reality.
> 
> Contrary to your hapless claims, definitions do change. All the time. The law changes. All the time. And your refusal to acknowledge either really has no relevance to the meaning of words or legal definitions. As subjective isn't objective.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can call an elephant an ant. Make it legal and everything. And my subjective bleating will have no affect on the legal definition.
> 
> Of course, we both know it changes nothing.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The definition itself will change. That's everything.
> 
> No one in 200 years will care what you or Jesus said
Click to expand...


You don't need 200 years for the former. That's already happened.


----------



## 80zephyr

sealybobo said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to.  Biology does that.  It takes both a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as adoption demonstrates, the ability to concieve a child isn't what makes you that child's parents. A lesson reaffirmed when one parent is infertile....and they have kids by other means.
> 
> Unless you're going to argue that adoptive parents aren't parents....your argument is already DOA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage reflects this immutable biological fact, and the needs of society and of children with regard to the responsibility of fathers and mothers for their children and to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that it doesn't. No marriage requires children or is predicated on them. And if you do have kids, there's no requirement that they be genetically related to you in order to be their parents.
> 
> Marriage is whatever say it is. As we invented it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is what we say it is? In reality then, EVERYTHING is what we say it is. The only law against murder is because we "say" that it is illegal and the killer will be punished. Everything we do is because it is "what we say it is" All of morality, all of what is right or wrong is a human construct.
> 
> Orwell has your kind down pat.
> 
> *War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.*
> 
> *George Orwell*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We humans do make the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do, but not all the time. The laws of nature don't change.  Would you be happy if murder or pedophilia was legalized? Do you feel it would be a help or a hindrance to the human condition.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im glad I don't live in a society that condolns those things but I don't like gay people having to live in the closet. They are who they are. Like Peter Griffin said I like my beer cold and my homos flaming.
> 
> Sorry, the homosexual is one of many reasons I determined Christianity is just another ancient religion written by homophobic men.
Click to expand...


Religion has nothing to do with nature. If I start using religion, you have permission to stop me.

Mark


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as adoption demonstrates, the ability to concieve a child isn't what makes you that child's parents. A lesson reaffirmed when one parent is infertile....and they have kids by other means.
> 
> Unless you're going to argue that adoptive parents aren't parents....your argument is already DOA.
> 
> Except that it doesn't. No marriage requires children or is predicated on them. And if you do have kids, there's no requirement that they be genetically related to you in order to be their parents.
> 
> Marriage is whatever say it is. As we invented it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is what we say it is? In reality then, EVERYTHING is what we say it is. The only law against murder is because we "say" that it is illegal and the killer will be punished. Everything we do is because it is "what we say it is" All of morality, all of what is right or wrong is a human construct.
> 
> Orwell has your kind down pat.
> 
> *War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.*
> 
> *George Orwell*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We humans do make the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do, but not all the time. The laws of nature don't change.  Would you be happy if murder or pedophilia was legalized? Do you feel it would be a help or a hindrance to the human condition.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im glad I don't live in a society that condolns those things but I don't like gay people having to live in the closet. They are who they are. Like Peter Griffin said I like my beer cold and my homos flaming.
> 
> Sorry, the homosexual is one of many reasons I determined Christianity is just another ancient religion written by homophobic men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion has nothing to do with nature. If I start using religion, you have permission to stop me.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


You don't speak for nature, Mark. Nor is marriage bound to your conceptions of nature.

Remember, you're nobody. Your subjective opinion has no relevance to anything we're discussing. Not the meaning of marriage, not the meaning of words, not the meaning of the laws.

We decide all those things. You decide none of it. Get used to the idea.


----------



## 80zephyr

sealybobo said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite impossible for me to lose. Reality does not change because the law says it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that you already did. As the only thing you've offered to define 'reality'....is your subjective opinion.
> 
> And you're nobody.
> 
> Is you citing your subjective opinion as defining objective reality all you have? If so.....that was easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I am rational enough to understand "newspeak".  And I reject it because it is not reality.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Mark. But your'e wildly irrational. As you still think that your subjective opinion defines objective reality.
> 
> Contrary to your hapless claims, definitions do change. All the time. The law changes. All the time. And your refusal to acknowledge either really has no relevance to the meaning of words or legal definitions. As subjective isn't objective.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can call an elephant an ant. Make it legal and everything. And my subjective bleating will have no affect on the legal definition.
> 
> Of course, we both know it changes nothing.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The definition itself will change. That's everything.
> 
> No one in 200 years will care what you or Jesus said
Click to expand...


Lol. I swear that when Orwell wrote 1984, he had a picture of you on his desk for inspiration.

The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history. 

George Orwell
Read more at: George Orwell Quotes at BrainyQuote


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that you already did. As the only thing you've offered to define 'reality'....is your subjective opinion.
> 
> And you're nobody.
> 
> Is you citing your subjective opinion as defining objective reality all you have? If so.....that was easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I am rational enough to understand "newspeak".  And I reject it because it is not reality.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Mark. But your'e wildly irrational. As you still think that your subjective opinion defines objective reality.
> 
> Contrary to your hapless claims, definitions do change. All the time. The law changes. All the time. And your refusal to acknowledge either really has no relevance to the meaning of words or legal definitions. As subjective isn't objective.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can call an elephant an ant. Make it legal and everything. And my subjective bleating will have no affect on the legal definition.
> 
> Of course, we both know it changes nothing.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The definition itself will change. That's everything.
> 
> No one in 200 years will care what you or Jesus said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. I swear that when Orwell wrote 1984, he had a picture of you on his desk for inspiration.
> 
> The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.
> 
> George Orwell
> Read more at: George Orwell Quotes at BrainyQuote
Click to expand...


Or.....your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality. 

One of the two.


----------



## sealybobo

80zephyr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, marriage doesn't define the gender of one's parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to.  Biology does that.  It takes both a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as adoption demonstrates, the ability to concieve a child isn't what makes you that child's parents. A lesson reaffirmed when one parent is infertile....and they have kids by other means.
> 
> Unless you're going to argue that adoptive parents aren't parents....your argument is already DOA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage reflects this immutable biological fact, and the needs of society and of children with regard to the responsibility of fathers and mothers for their children and to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that it doesn't. No marriage requires children or is predicated on them. And if you do have kids, there's no requirement that they be genetically related to you in order to be their parents.
> 
> Marriage is whatever say it is. As we invented it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is what we say it is? In reality then, EVERYTHING is what we say it is. The only law against murder is because we "say" that it is illegal and the killer will be punished. Everything we do is because it is "what we say it is" All of morality, all of what is right or wrong is a human construct.
> 
> Orwell has your kind down pat.
> 
> *War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.*
> 
> *George Orwell*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We humans do make the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do, but not all the time. The laws of nature don't change.  Would you be happy if murder or pedophilia was legalized? Do you feel it would be a help or a hindrance to the human condition.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

No. So what? There have always been gays. If there's a god he made them. No reason to hide who you are. Who are you to judge? How they hurting you?


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is what we say it is? In reality then, EVERYTHING is what we say it is. The only law against murder is because we "say" that it is illegal and the killer will be punished. Everything we do is because it is "what we say it is" All of morality, all of what is right or wrong is a human construct.
> 
> Orwell has your kind down pat.
> 
> *War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.*
> 
> *George Orwell*
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> We humans do make the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do, but not all the time. The laws of nature don't change.  Would you be happy if murder or pedophilia was legalized? Do you feel it would be a help or a hindrance to the human condition.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im glad I don't live in a society that condolns those things but I don't like gay people having to live in the closet. They are who they are. Like Peter Griffin said I like my beer cold and my homos flaming.
> 
> Sorry, the homosexual is one of many reasons I determined Christianity is just another ancient religion written by homophobic men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion has nothing to do with nature. If I start using religion, you have permission to stop me.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't speak for nature, Mark. Nor is marriage bound to your conceptions of nature.
> 
> Remember, you're nobody. Your subjective opinion has no relevance to anything we're discussing. Not the meaning of marriage, not the meaning of words, not the meaning of the laws.
> 
> We decide all those things. You decide none of it. Get used to the idea.
Click to expand...


Who is this "we" you keep referring to?  It wasn't to long ago that "you" are where I am, being dictated to. The only difference is, that my stance was rational. Your side will also determine that Jenner is a woman. They are already.

Sorry, just because you are now in a position of power doesn't make your assertion any more sensible

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I am rational enough to understand "newspeak".  And I reject it because it is not reality.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Mark. But your'e wildly irrational. As you still think that your subjective opinion defines objective reality.
> 
> Contrary to your hapless claims, definitions do change. All the time. The law changes. All the time. And your refusal to acknowledge either really has no relevance to the meaning of words or legal definitions. As subjective isn't objective.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can call an elephant an ant. Make it legal and everything. And my subjective bleating will have no affect on the legal definition.
> 
> Of course, we both know it changes nothing.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The definition itself will change. That's everything.
> 
> No one in 200 years will care what you or Jesus said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. I swear that when Orwell wrote 1984, he had a picture of you on his desk for inspiration.
> 
> The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.
> 
> George Orwell
> Read more at: George Orwell Quotes at BrainyQuote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or.....your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.
> 
> One of the two.
Click to expand...



Reality is not subject to my opinion. It is what it is.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

sealybobo said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to.  Biology does that.  It takes both a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as adoption demonstrates, the ability to concieve a child isn't what makes you that child's parents. A lesson reaffirmed when one parent is infertile....and they have kids by other means.
> 
> Unless you're going to argue that adoptive parents aren't parents....your argument is already DOA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage reflects this immutable biological fact, and the needs of society and of children with regard to the responsibility of fathers and mothers for their children and to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that it doesn't. No marriage requires children or is predicated on them. And if you do have kids, there's no requirement that they be genetically related to you in order to be their parents.
> 
> Marriage is whatever say it is. As we invented it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is what we say it is? In reality then, EVERYTHING is what we say it is. The only law against murder is because we "say" that it is illegal and the killer will be punished. Everything we do is because it is "what we say it is" All of morality, all of what is right or wrong is a human construct.
> 
> Orwell has your kind down pat.
> 
> *War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.*
> 
> *George Orwell*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We humans do make the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do, but not all the time. The laws of nature don't change.  Would you be happy if murder or pedophilia was legalized? Do you feel it would be a help or a hindrance to the human condition.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. So what? There have always been gays. If there's a god he made them. No reason to hide who you are. Who are you to judge? How they hurting you?
Click to expand...


Any action in society affects all of society. Hurting me is not the question. And if God made gays, he also made murderers, thieves,  and liars. Who am I to judge them?  

Mark


----------



## sealybobo

80zephyr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as adoption demonstrates, the ability to concieve a child isn't what makes you that child's parents. A lesson reaffirmed when one parent is infertile....and they have kids by other means.
> 
> Unless you're going to argue that adoptive parents aren't parents....your argument is already DOA.
> 
> Except that it doesn't. No marriage requires children or is predicated on them. And if you do have kids, there's no requirement that they be genetically related to you in order to be their parents.
> 
> Marriage is whatever say it is. As we invented it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is what we say it is? In reality then, EVERYTHING is what we say it is. The only law against murder is because we "say" that it is illegal and the killer will be punished. Everything we do is because it is "what we say it is" All of morality, all of what is right or wrong is a human construct.
> 
> Orwell has your kind down pat.
> 
> *War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.*
> 
> *George Orwell*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We humans do make the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do, but not all the time. The laws of nature don't change.  Would you be happy if murder or pedophilia was legalized? Do you feel it would be a help or a hindrance to the human condition.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im glad I don't live in a society that condolns those things but I don't like gay people having to live in the closet. They are who they are. Like Peter Griffin said I like my beer cold and my homos flaming.
> 
> Sorry, the homosexual is one of many reasons I determined Christianity is just another ancient religion written by homophobic men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion has nothing to do with nature. If I start using religion, you have permission to stop me.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

We used to think no other animals were gay but now we know it is natural. Rare but natural none the less. 

And we are the most evolved animal. It doesn't matter if a more primitive animal is gay. If some of us are so what?

You would think gays would have gone extinct because they can't pass on the gay gene. Lol. The truth is do you know who gives birth to gay kids? Hetero parents. I guess exposure to straight couples doesn't necessarily make a kid straight


----------



## sealybobo

80zephyr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as adoption demonstrates, the ability to concieve a child isn't what makes you that child's parents. A lesson reaffirmed when one parent is infertile....and they have kids by other means.
> 
> Unless you're going to argue that adoptive parents aren't parents....your argument is already DOA.
> 
> Except that it doesn't. No marriage requires children or is predicated on them. And if you do have kids, there's no requirement that they be genetically related to you in order to be their parents.
> 
> Marriage is whatever say it is. As we invented it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is what we say it is? In reality then, EVERYTHING is what we say it is. The only law against murder is because we "say" that it is illegal and the killer will be punished. Everything we do is because it is "what we say it is" All of morality, all of what is right or wrong is a human construct.
> 
> Orwell has your kind down pat.
> 
> *War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.*
> 
> *George Orwell*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We humans do make the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do, but not all the time. The laws of nature don't change.  Would you be happy if murder or pedophilia was legalized? Do you feel it would be a help or a hindrance to the human condition.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. So what? There have always been gays. If there's a god he made them. No reason to hide who you are. Who are you to judge? How they hurting you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any action in society affects all of society. Hurting me is not the question. And if God made gays, he also made murderers, thieves,  and liars. Who am I to judge them?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

This is stupid. If you kill or steal you hurt someone else. Gays aren't hurting anyone.

Are you a judge? We have laws against murder but no anti gay laws.

It's OK to lie. Or not against the law.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

80zephyr said:


> Yes, people have many problems today. Back in the 1950's divorce and broken homes were much rarer, Then the "enlightened" among us took away the taboo of divorce, and made it easy to get. Shacking up became acceptable as well.
> 
> And then, when the system broke, people like you come around and tell us that "its not so great" anyways, so why don't we just let it crumble even more.
> 
> Ruining our society even more will not solve our problems. Why not try to fix it instead?



  I suppose I should some time compile a consistent list of what I see as the defining clichés of wrong-wing ideology; I know I've identified, at various times, several principles (I don't know how many; I haven't counted them) that I've described by that term.

  But this is one of them:  That when wrong-wing policies produce disastrous results, wrong-wingers propose to remedy these results with even more extreme versions of the same bad policies that produced these results in the first place.


----------



## sealybobo

skye said:


> I feel so sorry for these poor children nowadays...with 2 moms or three dads ....you know
> 
> Had that been my case...I would have turned into a serial killer.....
> 
> God bless these   poor people...what a life.


Yea, I saw my former boss and his husband and their son. He looked really unhappy on vacation with them somewhere in paradise. He'd be much happier back in a 3rd world orphanage where they saved him like I would a puppy. Lol


----------



## sealybobo

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We humans do make the rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do, but not all the time. The laws of nature don't change.  Would you be happy if murder or pedophilia was legalized? Do you feel it would be a help or a hindrance to the human condition.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im glad I don't live in a society that condolns those things but I don't like gay people having to live in the closet. They are who they are. Like Peter Griffin said I like my beer cold and my homos flaming.
> 
> Sorry, the homosexual is one of many reasons I determined Christianity is just another ancient religion written by homophobic men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion has nothing to do with nature. If I start using religion, you have permission to stop me.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't speak for nature, Mark. Nor is marriage bound to your conceptions of nature.
> 
> Remember, you're nobody. Your subjective opinion has no relevance to anything we're discussing. Not the meaning of marriage, not the meaning of words, not the meaning of the laws.
> 
> We decide all those things. You decide none of it. Get used to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is this "we" you keep referring to?  It wasn't to long ago that "you" are where I am, being dictated to. The only difference is, that my stance was rational. Your side will also determine that Jenner is a woman. They are already.
> 
> Sorry, just because you are now in a position of power doesn't make your assertion any more sensible
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Turns out your position on this is unconstitutional. What else can we say?


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as adoption demonstrates, the ability to concieve a child isn't what makes you that child's parents. A lesson reaffirmed when one parent is infertile....and they have kids by other means.
> 
> Unless you're going to argue that adoptive parents aren't parents....your argument is already DOA.
> 
> Except that it doesn't. No marriage requires children or is predicated on them. And if you do have kids, there's no requirement that they be genetically related to you in order to be their parents.
> 
> Marriage is whatever say it is. As we invented it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is what we say it is? In reality then, EVERYTHING is what we say it is. The only law against murder is because we "say" that it is illegal and the killer will be punished. Everything we do is because it is "what we say it is" All of morality, all of what is right or wrong is a human construct.
> 
> Orwell has your kind down pat.
> 
> *War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.*
> 
> *George Orwell*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We humans do make the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do, but not all the time. The laws of nature don't change.  Would you be happy if murder or pedophilia was legalized? Do you feel it would be a help or a hindrance to the human condition.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. So what? There have always been gays. If there's a god he made them. No reason to hide who you are. Who are you to judge? How they hurting you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any action in society affects all of society. Hurting me is not the question. And if God made gays, he also made murderers, thieves,  and liars. Who am I to judge them?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Homosexuality doesn't kill you. It doesn't murder you. Rendering your analogies more useless melodramatics. 

Gays don't hurt you. They take nothing from you. 'Affecting you' isn't hurting you. Leaving Sealy's question unanswered. How are they hurting you.

And your evasion is an elegant answer; you can't articulate anyway that they are.


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Mark. But your'e wildly irrational. As you still think that your subjective opinion defines objective reality.
> 
> Contrary to your hapless claims, definitions do change. All the time. The law changes. All the time. And your refusal to acknowledge either really has no relevance to the meaning of words or legal definitions. As subjective isn't objective.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can call an elephant an ant. Make it legal and everything. And my subjective bleating will have no affect on the legal definition.
> 
> Of course, we both know it changes nothing.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The definition itself will change. That's everything.
> 
> No one in 200 years will care what you or Jesus said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. I swear that when Orwell wrote 1984, he had a picture of you on his desk for inspiration.
> 
> The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.
> 
> George Orwell
> Read more at: George Orwell Quotes at BrainyQuote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or.....your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.
> 
> One of the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is not subject to my opinion. It is what it is.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Your conception of 'reality' is nothing but subjective opinion. Opinions which are provably false......for example, that definitions do not change.

Which is obvious nonsense. Definitions change regularly, both in language, usage and the law. You deny that any of this can happen. History proves you wrong.

When you muster more than provably false fallacies and the insistence that your subjective opinion defines reality, join us.


----------



## Skylar

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We humans do make the rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do, but not all the time. The laws of nature don't change.  Would you be happy if murder or pedophilia was legalized? Do you feel it would be a help or a hindrance to the human condition.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im glad I don't live in a society that condolns those things but I don't like gay people having to live in the closet. They are who they are. Like Peter Griffin said I like my beer cold and my homos flaming.
> 
> Sorry, the homosexual is one of many reasons I determined Christianity is just another ancient religion written by homophobic men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion has nothing to do with nature. If I start using religion, you have permission to stop me.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't speak for nature, Mark. Nor is marriage bound to your conceptions of nature.
> 
> Remember, you're nobody. Your subjective opinion has no relevance to anything we're discussing. Not the meaning of marriage, not the meaning of words, not the meaning of the laws.
> 
> We decide all those things. You decide none of it. Get used to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is this "we" you keep referring to?
Click to expand...


All the other people that you ignore in your insistence that your subjective opinion alone defines reality.  Remember, you've chosen to ignore dictionaries, insisting that you define the meaning of words. You've chosen to ignore history, insisting that definitions do not change. You've decided to ignore the law, insisting that you and you alone define marriage.

'We' would be the rest of the world that you ignore in your absurd insistence that you define reality. We're still here. And we still decide what marriage is, what definitions mean, what the law is.

You don't.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, people have many problems today. Back in the 1950's divorce and broken homes were much rarer, Then the "enlightened" among us took away the taboo of divorce, and made it easy to get. Shacking up became acceptable as well.
> 
> And then, when the system broke, people like you come around and tell us that "its not so great" anyways, so why don't we just let it crumble even more.
> 
> Ruining our society even more will not solve our problems. Why not try to fix it instead?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose I should some time compile a consistent list of what I see as the defining clichés of wrong-wing ideology; I know I've identified, at various times, several principles (I don't know how many; I haven't counted them) that I've described by that term.
> 
> But this is one of them:  That when wrong-wing policies produce disastrous results, wrong-wingers propose to remedy these results with even more extreme versions of the same bad policies that produced these results in the first place.
Click to expand...


'Wrong-wing' according to who? Remember, your argument is predicated on you being the authoritative arbiter of all terms. And you're the arbiter of none. 

How is same sex marriage 'extreme' or 'disastrous'? What harm does it cause you? What does it take from you?

Absolutely nothing.


----------



## sealybobo

Skylar said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can call an elephant an ant. Make it legal and everything. And my subjective bleating will have no affect on the legal definition.
> 
> Of course, we both know it changes nothing.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> The definition itself will change. That's everything.
> 
> No one in 200 years will care what you or Jesus said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. I swear that when Orwell wrote 1984, he had a picture of you on his desk for inspiration.
> 
> The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.
> 
> George Orwell
> Read more at: George Orwell Quotes at BrainyQuote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or.....your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.
> 
> One of the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is not subject to my opinion. It is what it is.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your conception of 'reality' is nothing but subjective opinion. Opinions which are provably false......for example, that definitions do not change.
> 
> Which is obvious nonsense. Definitions change regularly, both in language, usage and the law. You deny that any of this can happen. History proves you wrong.
> 
> When you muster more than provably false fallacies and the insistence that your subjective opinion defines reality, join us.
Click to expand...

A fag used to be a cigarette and being gay meant being happy.

And marriage used to be when a man and woman got hitched.


----------



## JoeB131

So Silly-wet is on his usual rant about how gays are going to make children  unhappy by having them. 

So by his logic, if two parents of oppossite genders are critical to good child rearing. 

so we should pass a law that no one should get a divorce, no matter how bad things are, until all their kids are 18.  Otherwise,we take away your kids and give them to a couple that is staying together. 

If one parent dies, the remaining widow/widower is REQUIRED to get married to someone else within one year.  

Of course, everyone would find these laws ridiculous intrusions into our lives. But that doesn't matter, Silly-wet heard that if you say "For the children", that trumps all other considerations, and he thinks he can win the homophobic arguments he lost if he says it.


----------



## sealybobo

JoeB131 said:


> So Silly-wet is on his usual rant about how gays are going to make children  unhappy by having them.
> 
> So by his logic, if two parents of oppossite genders are critical to good child rearing.
> 
> so we should pass a law that no one should get a divorce, no matter how bad things are, until all their kids are 18.  Otherwise,we take away your kids and give them to a couple that is staying together.
> 
> If one parent dies, the remaining widow/widower is REQUIRED to get married to someone else within one year.
> 
> Of course, everyone would find these laws ridiculous intrusions into our lives. But that doesn't matter, Silly-wet heard that if you say "For the children", that trumps all other considerations, and he thinks he can win the homophobic arguments he lost if he says it.


No. In your scenario the law should be the father participates financially even if he won't emotionally in the child's life. 

A lot of single moms do fine with what they got. Especially if their spouse dies. But dont pretend its a positive thing for kids cause it aint.

And you make a good point not all fathers make good dads. Some kids are better off without their fathers. No ones going to eliminate all bad parents but we can certainly lower the numbers. Why are you pro one parent homes?

And no one wants to take your kid away. You had him now raise him. We're sick of you raising piss poor humans.


----------



## Silhouette

sealybobo said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Silly-wet is on his usual rant about how gays are going to make children  unhappy by having them.
> 
> So by his logic, if two parents of oppossite genders are critical to good child rearing.
> 
> so we should pass a law that no one should get a divorce, no matter how bad things are, until all their kids are 18.  Otherwise,we take away your kids and give them to a couple that is staying together.
> 
> If one parent dies, the remaining widow/widower is REQUIRED to get married to someone else within one year.
> 
> Of course, everyone would find these laws ridiculous intrusions into our lives. But that doesn't matter, Silly-wet heard that if you say "For the children", that trumps all other considerations, and he thinks he can win the homophobic arguments he lost if he says it.
> 
> 
> 
> No. In your scenario the law should be the father participates financially even if he won't emotionally in the child's life.
> 
> A lot of single moms do fine with what they got. Especially if their spouse dies. But dont pretend its a positive thing for kids cause it aint.
> 
> And you make a good point not all fathers make good dads. Some kids are better off without their fathers. No ones going to eliminate all bad parents but we can certainly lower the numbers. Why are you pro one parent homes?
> 
> And no one wants to take your kid away. You had him now raise him. We're sick of you raising piss poor humans.
Click to expand...

The point is, marriage was invented to cure the ills of single parenthood.  And precisely so that both either the actual creative parents (mom/dad) would be together, or at the very least a mother/father stand-in (adoptive man/wife, grandpa/grandma) for the sake of the childrens' future.  In that Rule, all children involved have access to both their own gender as a role model and the opposite one to learn how to interact in an adult social world that contains both.

That's why the Rule was set.  And that is its function.  No substitutes are acceptable for the Rule.

One of the provisions of the Infant Doctrine regarding children and necessities is that a well rounded social preparation for later life is considered a necessity.  Gay marriage by its very structure, destroys half of that foundation 100% of the time.  That causes wounds to children and leaves them ill prepared for life.  Causing wounds to children or damaging them socially is strictly forbidden in contract law when adults are implicitly involved in contracts with children.  So any contract that wounds or damages children is void upon its face without legal challenge.  

Any person, persons, judge, tribunal or attorneys seeking to show the world that gay marriage "doesn't harm children and in fact is good for them" has the burden upon them to FIRST demonstrate that beyond a shadow of a doubt (and, good luck with that) BEFORE any revisions to the marriage contract can happen where children are deprived of either a mother or father for life as a binding legal condition.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> The point is, marriage was invented to cure the ills of single parenthood.


No, it wasn't:

History of Marriage: 13 Surprising Facts

And:

*4. Babies optional*

In many early cultures, men could dissolve a marriage or take another wife if a woman was infertile. However, the early Christian church was a trailblazer in arguing that marriage was not contingent on producing offspring.

"The early Christian church held the position that if you can procreate you must not refuse to procreate. But they always took the position that they would annul a marriage if a man could not have sex with his wife, but not if they could not conceive," Coontz told LiveScience.


----------



## Silhouette

PaintMyHouse said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, marriage was invented to cure the ills of single parenthood.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wasn't:
Click to expand...

We'll let the 300 million in this country determine how children are implicit parties to the marriage contract, not just 5 People in SCOTUS, two of which displayed rampant public bias before and during the Obergefell proceedings.

We wouldn't want to derail the foundation of American Law to accommodate a cult that harms children, now would we?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, marriage was invented to cure the ills of single parenthood.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wasn't:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We'll let the 300 million in this country determine how children are implicit parties to the marriage contract, not just 5 People in SCOTUS...
Click to expand...

We are not a democracy, for reasons like that.


----------



## sealybobo

Silhouette said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Silly-wet is on his usual rant about how gays are going to make children  unhappy by having them.
> 
> So by his logic, if two parents of oppossite genders are critical to good child rearing.
> 
> so we should pass a law that no one should get a divorce, no matter how bad things are, until all their kids are 18.  Otherwise,we take away your kids and give them to a couple that is staying together.
> 
> If one parent dies, the remaining widow/widower is REQUIRED to get married to someone else within one year.
> 
> Of course, everyone would find these laws ridiculous intrusions into our lives. But that doesn't matter, Silly-wet heard that if you say "For the children", that trumps all other considerations, and he thinks he can win the homophobic arguments he lost if he says it.
> 
> 
> 
> No. In your scenario the law should be the father participates financially even if he won't emotionally in the child's life.
> 
> A lot of single moms do fine with what they got. Especially if their spouse dies. But dont pretend its a positive thing for kids cause it aint.
> 
> And you make a good point not all fathers make good dads. Some kids are better off without their fathers. No ones going to eliminate all bad parents but we can certainly lower the numbers. Why are you pro one parent homes?
> 
> And no one wants to take your kid away. You had him now raise him. We're sick of you raising piss poor humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, marriage was invented to cure the ills of single parenthood.  And precisely so that both either the actual creative parents (mom/dad) would be together, or at the very least a mother/father stand-in (adoptive man/wife, grandpa/grandma) for the sake of the childrens' future.  In that Rule, all children involved have access to both their own gender as a role model and the opposite one to learn how to interact in an adult social world that contains both.
> 
> That's why the Rule was set.  And that is its function.  No substitutes are acceptable for the Rule.
> 
> One of the provisions of the Infant Doctrine regarding children and necessities is that a well rounded social preparation for later life is considered a necessity.  Gay marriage by its very structure, destroys half of that foundation 100% of the time.  That causes wounds to children and leaves them ill prepared for life.  Causing wounds to children or damaging them socially is strictly forbidden in contract law when adults are implicitly involved in contracts with children.  So any contract that wounds or damages children is void upon its face without legal challenge.
> 
> Any person, persons, judge, tribunal or attorneys seeking to show the world that gay marriage "doesn't harm children and in fact is good for them" has the burden upon them to FIRST demonstrate that beyond a shadow of a doubt (and, good luck with that) BEFORE any revisions to the marriage contract can happen where children are deprived of either a mother or father for life as a binding legal condition.
Click to expand...

We only give gay parents kids when they don't have straight parents who want them. 

P.S. Lots of other reasons we encourage marriage.  I'll give you one small example.  We let 2 old people get married and get the tax benefits of marriage.  Why do we do that?  Because it is cheaper and greener for them to be living in one home rather than 2.  That saves on electricity and heat.  Cheaper to light up one room and heat one room for 2 people than it is to heat up and light up 2 homes for the same two people.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the actual reality- the real reality- not what voices in your head say- say you are delusional.
> 
> Per both the Webster and Oxford English Dictionary- marriage includes same gender couples.
> 
> And thousands of same gender couples are being married legally married all around the United States.
> 
> You are as deluded as the person who claims that a mixed race couple is not really married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never denied that people can change a definition. I do deny that they can change reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is whatever we say marriage is.
> 
> That is the reality.
> 
> In the United States, any couple issued a marriage license is in reality- married.
> 
> Those who claim otherwise are denying reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, everything is what we say it is. Black can be white, man can be woman. If you have children, I hope that you live to see the world you are leaving them.
> 
> The book "1984" is coming true. Orwell was just a little to early with the date.
> 
> When a society gets used to denying reality, it becomes so much easier for the next denial.
> 
> *War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.*
> 
> * George Orwell*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mark.....you're stuck. As your only argument is to insist that marriage is whatever *you* say it is. And you're nobody. Your argument breaks at the same place it does with Bobs: your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.
> 
> You can't get around that.
> 
> So why would a rational person ignore the law and the dictionary and instead believe you.....citing yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason that a rational person would know that a man is not a woman, or a white person is not black.
Click to expand...


Again- you citing you- and you ignore both the law and dictionaries.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark.....you're stuck. As your only argument is to insist that marriage is whatever *you* say it is. And you're nobody. Your argument breaks at the same place it does with Bobs: your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.
> 
> You can't get around that.
> 
> So why would a rational person ignore the law and the dictionary and instead believe you.....citing yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason that a rational person would know that a man is not a woman, or a white person is not black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what reason would that be? Remember, contrary to your batshit claim, definitions do change. And have.
> 
> Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> You insist this does not happen, can not happen. History, reality, and the dictionary demonstrate that you're wrong. And the dictionary is quite simply a better source on the meaning of words than you are. When it comes to legal terms, the law is a better source on legal definitions than you are.
> 
> You disagree. Um, so what? Linguistically, practically and legally.....you're nobody. Nor does your personal opinion have the slightest relevance to anyone else's marriage.
> 
> Get used to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are holding me to a position I did not take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I believe you. But this 80zephyr guy? He says you're a fucking liar:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, definitions do not change. Stupid people tell us they change. We now have "definitions" that tell us a man is a woman, a white is a black, and a middle aged man is really a six year old girl.
> 
> Post 273
> Poll.  Please Vote.  Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your position is demonstrably false. As the dictionary demonstrates, definitions change all the time. With the law demonstrating the same process over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have laid out why reality trumps both definition and law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. You offered a predictable Begging the Question fallacy offering us your subjective opinion and demanding it was 'reality'. Apparently because you say so.
> 
> Sorry, Zephy.....but your argument breaks in the same place as Bob's does. Your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality. Its just your opinion. An opinion contradicted by both the dictionary and the law.
> 
> In any contest on the meaning of words between you and the dictionary, the dictionary wins. In any contest on legal definitions between you and the law, the law wins. As linguistically and legally, you're nobody.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My, my, you seem upset. Like I said before, the law or the dictionary do not define reality. I can legally change the name of a rose to broccoli, but it will always and forever be a rose.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Right- Mark defines reality- and ignores the law and the dictionary. 

If Mark decides that a rose is really broccoli- then Mark expects that we are obligated to believe that too.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children are created by the mating of a man and a woman. Marriage is an acknowledgment of that coupling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet there are laws in this country that require that when certain men and women marry they must not be able to create children from that coupling.
> 
> Double standard much?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the problem with questions like this. People try to use exceptions to make the rule. Using exceptions, anything is possible.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So an exception can only be made for different sex spouses because why?
> 
> The concept of equal protection under the law is that LIKE situations are examined and applied.  So here is your chance, please provide the legal justification for why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in different sex relationships should be allowed to civilly marry  and yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in same sex relationships should not be allowed to civilly marry.
> 
> Remember, you have to apply reasoning consistently, an exception applied to one situation would have to be available to the other situation.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very easy. All people WERE treated equally. Any man could marry any woman. Every person in America was treated exactly the same.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Exactly what the State of Virginia argued when it argued for its ban on mixed race marriages. Any black man could marry any black woman. Any white man could marry any white woman. Every person in America was treated exactly the same.

That argument failed for the same reason your argument failed.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The concept of equal protection under the law is that LIKE situations are examined and applied.*  So here is your chance, please provide the legal justification for why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in different sex relationships should be allowed to civilly marry  and yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in same sex relationships should not be allowed to civilly marry.
> 
> Remember, you have to apply reasoning consistently, an exception applied to one situation would have to be available to the other situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A same-sex homosexual couple is not the same thing as a heterosexual coupling between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...


A couple is not the same thing as a coupling. 

However, now in America a couple- regardless of their gender- is treated legally the same when it comes to marriage. 

And that is a wonderful change.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the problem with questions like this. People try to use exceptions to make the rule. Using exceptions, anything is possible.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So an exception can only be made for different sex spouses because why?
> 
> *The concept of equal protection under the law is that LIKE situations are examined and applied*.  So here is your chance, please provide the legal justification for why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in different sex relationships should be allowed to civilly marry  and yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in same sex relationships should not be allowed to civilly marry.
> Remember, you have to apply reasoning consistently, an exception applied to one situation would have to be available to the other situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ask the easiest questions to answer.
> 
> The rule is hetero because marriage isn't about adults.  It's about the children that states expect to arrive when two adults of opposite genders unite, regardless of their fertility or age.  It is because beyond reproduction, children need the stable matrix wherein they get both a mother and father united for their benefit for life.  That's why the rule exists and that is the description for the reason it exists.
> 
> So if there's a sterile hetero couple, the state expects they will adopt some day...not that they will, but exceptions don't run the rule as Mark just told you.  The important issue with adoptive parents or grandparents (elderly marrieds) is that there is a man functioning as a father and a woman functioning as a mother...which...as you know..."father" and "mother" don't end at conception.  It's a lifelong commitment to new beings who need guidance in the world specific to their gender and a reflection of how to deal with the opposite gender.
> 
> There is nothing "like" a father.  A lesbian for sure is not "like" a father.  There is nothing "like" a mother.  A gay man can never be a mother.
> 
> Gays can have whatever contractual situation they want with each other.  They just can't call it "marriage".  Because marriage involves children and children's stake in what we call "marriage" is a mother and father for life.  If gays have children with opposite gendered people, then they're not really gay are they if they've welcomed the opposite gender with which to procreate (lesbians who spend the night with a man or "turkey baster" a man's semen into themselves.)  What will they tell their son?  "Your dad was a turkey baster, so just live with it".  The boy walks away thinking "great, my only value as a man is to be a handful of paste that lesbians use to get children..
> 
> Great lesson for kids and their self-worth..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two dads are better than 1 mom. Do you realize the number one reason we have so much crime and poverty in this country is because too many men aren't fathering their kids????
> 
> We have no problems coming from gay parents who take an active role in their children's lives. Did you have 2 parents in your home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two dads are better than one mom? Well then, wouldn't 3 dads be better? How about 4?
> 
> People continue to ask the wrong questions.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like you? You just did what you accused others of doing. You are asking the wrong question.
> 
> A. Why are there babies or kids sitting waiting to be adopted?
> B. Would you rather they stay in foster homes than live with two loving gay dudes?
> C. Where is crime and poverty coming from? Is it coming from young men and women who were raised by gays or single moms and no dad?
> 
> Heteros have their own problems to solve and they are bigger than this. But it's easier to stay in denial about yourselves and instead blame liberals blacks Muslims or gays
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, people have many problems today. Back in the 1950's divorce and broken homes were much rarer, Then the "enlightened" among us took away the taboo of divorce, and made it easy to get. Shacking up became acceptable as well.
> 
> And then, when the system broke, people like you come around and tell us that "its not so great" anyways, so why don't we just let it crumble even more.
> 
> Ruining our society even more will not solve our problems. Why not try to fix it instead?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


And how are you trying to fix it- by preventing couples from marrying- and wanting to prevent kids from being adopted?


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, marriage doesn't define the gender of one's parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to.  Biology does that.  It takes both a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as adoption demonstrates, the ability to concieve a child isn't what makes you that child's parents. A lesson reaffirmed when one parent is infertile....and they have kids by other means.
> 
> Unless you're going to argue that adoptive parents aren't parents....your argument is already DOA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage reflects this immutable biological fact, and the needs of society and of children with regard to the responsibility of fathers and mothers for their children and to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that it doesn't. No marriage requires children or is predicated on them. And if you do have kids, there's no requirement that they be genetically related to you in order to be their parents.
> 
> Marriage is whatever say it is. As we invented it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is what we say it is? In reality then, EVERYTHING is what we say it is. The only law against murder is because we "say" that it is illegal and the killer will be punished. Everything we do is because it is "what we say it is" All of morality, all of what is right or wrong is a human construct.
Click to expand...


Marriage is what we say it is. 

In some countries, marriage includes polygamous marriages, where one man is married to many women. In our own country, that existed for a brief time within the Mormon communities of Utah- they said that marriage was one man and many women.

In some societies in the Himalayas, marriage has included 1 woman and several men. 

In human history, marriage has included many 'conditions' that we don't consider acceptable now

Child marriage
Ban's on inter-religious marriage
Ban's on inter-racial marriage
Women as chattel- wives essentially became the property of her husband
You insist that 'marriage' only exists as your definition- but reality shows that your 'reality' is just your prejudiced opinion.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, marriage doesn't define the gender of one's parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to.  Biology does that.  It takes both a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as adoption demonstrates, the ability to concieve a child isn't what makes you that child's parents. A lesson reaffirmed when one parent is infertile....and they have kids by other means.
> 
> Unless you're going to argue that adoptive parents aren't parents....your argument is already DOA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage reflects this immutable biological fact, and the needs of society and of children with regard to the responsibility of fathers and mothers for their children and to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that it doesn't. No marriage requires children or is predicated on them. And if you do have kids, there's no requirement that they be genetically related to you in order to be their parents.
> 
> Marriage is whatever say it is. As we invented it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is what we say it is? In reality then, EVERYTHING is what we say it is. The only law against murder is because we "say" that it is illegal and the killer will be punished. Everything we do is because it is "what we say it is" All of morality, all of what is right or wrong is a human construct.
> 
> Orwell has your kind down pat.
> 
> *War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.*
> 
> *George Orwell*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We humans do make the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do, but not all the time. The laws of nature don't change.  Would you be happy if murder or pedophilia was legalized? Do you feel it would be a help or a hindrance to the human condition.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


There is no 'law of nature' that prevents murder or pedophilia- these are the rules of men.

If you can't tell the difference between the consensual marriage between two adults- and child rape- that is a serious problem you have.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, people have many problems today. Back in the 1950's divorce and broken homes were much rarer, Then the "enlightened" among us took away the taboo of divorce, and made it easy to get. Shacking up became acceptable as well.
> 
> And then, when the system broke, people like you come around and tell us that "its not so great" anyways, so why don't we just let it crumble even more.
> 
> Ruining our society even more will not solve our problems. Why not try to fix it instead?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this is one of them:  That when wrong-wing policies produce disastrous results, wrong-wingers propose to remedy these results with even more extreme versions of the same bad policies that produced these results in the first place.
Click to expand...


Hmmm the Conservative war on drugs and Prohibition come immediately to mind.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, marriage was invented to cure the ills of single parenthood.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wasn't:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We'll let the 300 million in this country determine how
Click to expand...


We didn't wait for the population of the United States to decide on bans on mixed race marriages and we didn't wait for the population of the United States to decide on the bans on same gender marriage.

That is why we have a Constitution.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, marriage was invented to cure the ills of single parenthood.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wasn't:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We wouldn't want to derail the foundation of American Law to accommodate a cult that harms children, now would we?
Click to expand...


Wait- have you switched subjects to the Catholic Church now?


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, marriage was invented to cure the ills of single parenthood.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wasn't:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We'll let the 300 million in this country determine how children are implicit parties to the marriage contract, not just 5 People in SCOTUS, two of which displayed rampant public bias before and during the Obergefell proceedings.
> 
> We wouldn't want to derail the foundation of American Law to accommodate a cult that harms children, now would we?
Click to expand...


A bias that exists only in the minds of a few anti-gay loons. Children are not an implicit part of the marriage contract in any state. Not even the reddest of red state. Perhaps in Imaginationland they do but here in the United States...not so much. 

Your poor walls must be covered in thrown shit. lol


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> *Children are not an implicit part of the marriage contract* in any state. Not even the reddest of red state.



  Have fun arguing that one in court.  Because you will be...

And the poll at the top of this page will be all the evidence any appellate court will need on the "evolving attitudes about motherless or fatherless marriage".  No more bullshit fabricated polls to convince them that "the public is coming around to this".  90% opposed is tough to beat.  And the reams of psychological data about the damage done to fatherless sons is going to screw you.


----------



## Debra K

Bob Blaylock said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> A marriage is a personal relationship between two consenting adults arising out of a civil contract wherein the parties consent to mutual obligations of respect, fidelity, and support.   Children, whether born or unborn, are not parties to the marriage (a personal relationship) nor the civil contract between the consenting marriage partners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Children have no opportunity to have a direct voice in the marriage or other circumstances in which they are born, but they are most certainly affected by it, in a profound way. It is wrong—almost to the point of sociopathy—not to take their interests into account in a matter that has such a direct and serious effect on them.
Click to expand...


Perhaps another poster pointed this out, but it is worth repeating.  Our courts did take the interests of children into account, see, e.g.:




> Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser.  They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life.  The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.



http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf


----------



## Silhouette

No, the did not.


----------



## Silhouette

Debra K said:


> *Our courts did take the interests of children into account, see, e.g*.:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser.  They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life.  The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Click to expand...

False.  They did not.  They only took into account what they wanted to and never did discuss any harm caused to a child by depriving them of either a father or mother for life.  They barely glanced at what a completely new structure of marriage would do to children; only as a cursory gesture to "cover their tracks" lest they look exactly like they were: pandering to a gay cult....the children be damned...

Point me to language in argument transcripts or the Opinion which weighed a fatherless son or a motherless daughter and justified it to facilitate gay marriage.

You can't.  And that's a fact.  Children (as a whole, who are all bound to the new law over time) were not represented at Obergefell as to their unique share of the marriage contract.  And that is a mistrial.  And, from the polling results it is clear here that an overwhelming majority of the American public agree with me on this fact.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Children are not an implicit part of the marriage contract* in any state. Not even the reddest of red state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have fun arguing that one in court.  Because you will be...
Click to expand...


With your record of near perfect failure, you'll  have to excuse me if I don't take any of your legal predictions seriously. 

You can pretend children are an implicit part of a marriage contract until the cows come homes. As always, nobody is bound by what nonsense you invent today to harm gay people and their families. No one. 

I'll ask again. What is your end game, Sil? Denying gays marriage doesn't stop them from raising children. Your _solution_ solves nothing. You are too frightened to just come out and say that you want the government to remove children from the homes of gay people. Every time I ask you to elaborate you change the subject or flee the thread.


----------



## sealybobo

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the actual reality- the real reality- not what voices in your head say- say you are delusional.
> 
> Per both the Webster and Oxford English Dictionary- marriage includes same gender couples.
> 
> And thousands of same gender couples are being married legally married all around the United States.
> 
> You are as deluded as the person who claims that a mixed race couple is not really married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never denied that people can change a definition. I do deny that they can change reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is whatever we say marriage is.
> 
> That is the reality.
> 
> In the United States, any couple issued a marriage license is in reality- married.
> 
> Those who claim otherwise are denying reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, everything is what we say it is. Black can be white, man can be woman. If you have children, I hope that you live to see the world you are leaving them.
> 
> The book "1984" is coming true. Orwell was just a little to early with the date.
> 
> When a society gets used to denying reality, it becomes so much easier for the next denial.
> 
> *War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.*
> 
> * George Orwell*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mark.....you're stuck. As your only argument is to insist that marriage is whatever *you* say it is. And you're nobody. Your argument breaks at the same place it does with Bobs: your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.
> 
> You can't get around that.
> 
> So why would a rational person ignore the law and the dictionary and instead believe you.....citing yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason that a rational person would know that a man is not a woman, or a white person is not black.
> 
> Reality doesn't listen to the laws of man, or our definitions.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

*Marriage *is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws, as well as society in general. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or considered to be compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity. When defined broadly, marriage is considered a cultural universal.

Individuals may marry for several reasons, including legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious purposes. Whom they marry may be influenced by socially determined rules of incest, prescriptive marriage rules, parental choice and individual desire. In some areas of the world, arranged marriage, child marriage, polygamy, and sometimes forced marriage, may be practiced as a cultural tradition. Conversely, such practices may be outlawed and penalized in parts of the world out of concerns for women's rights and because of international law. In developed parts of the world, there has been a general trend towards ensuring equal rightswithin marriage for women and legally recognizing the marriages of interfaith or interracial, and same-sex couples. These trends coincide with the broader human rights movement.

Marriage can be recognized by a state, an organization, a religious authority, a tribal group, a local community or peers.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Children are not an implicit part of the marriage contract* in any state. Not even the reddest of red state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have fun arguing that one in court.  Because you will be...
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court already made the argument for us;



			
				Obergefell v. Hodges said:
			
		

> "This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."



But good luck insisting that the Supreme Court ignore the Supreme Court.....just because you have. 



> And the poll at the top of this page will be all the evidence any appellate court will need on the "evolving attitudes about motherless or fatherless marriage".  No more bullshit fabricated polls to convince them that "the public is coming around to this".  90% opposed is tough to beat.  And the reams of psychological data about the damage done to fatherless sons is going to screw you.



The poll doesn't even mention marriage. Nor is the right to marry conditioned on children or the ability to have them. 

Remember, just because you ignored the Supreme Court's explicit contradicting you don't mean that appellant courts are similarly obligated to do so.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> No, the did not.



Says you, citing yourself. The Supreme Court contradicts you:



			
				Obergefell v. Hodges said:
			
		

> Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.



You ignoring the Supreme Court and replacing their findings with your imagination......that's not a legal argument, Sil.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Our courts did take the interests of children into account, see, e.g*.:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser.  They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life.  The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False.  They did not.  They only took into account what they wanted to and never did discuss any harm caused to a child by depriving them of either a father or mother for life.  They barely glanced at what a completely new structure of marriage would do to children; only as a cursory gesture to "cover their tracks" lest they look exactly like they were: pandering to a gay cult....the children be damned...
> 
> Point me to language in argument transcripts or the Opinion which weighed a fatherless son or a motherless daughter and justified it to facilitate gay marriage.
> 
> You can't.  And that's a fact.  Children (as a whole, who are all bound to the new law over time) were not represented at Obergefell as to their unique share of the marriage contract.  And that is a mistrial.  And, from the polling results it is clear here that an overwhelming majority of the American public agree with me on this fact.
Click to expand...


How can a mistrial occur when a trial has never taken place? You try so hard to sound intelligent but every time you post you reveal the exact opposite. lol

A straw poll on amessage board doesn't mean the majority of the American public agrees with you. Those are lies you tell yourself you so can pretend your life's work hasn't been an abject failure.


----------



## mdk

The poll at the top of this page clearly states that a majority of Americans feel that vanilla ice-cream is the best flavor. lol.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Our courts did take the interests of children into account, see, e.g*.:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser.  They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life.  The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False.  They did not.  They only took into account what they wanted to and never did discuss any harm caused to a child by depriving them of either a father or mother for life.
Click to expand...


Marriage doesn't define the gender of one's parents, Sil. Making your entire argument irrelevant.

Nor does denying marriage to same sex parents magically change them into opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that these children never have married parents. Which hurts them and helps no child. *Meaning that denial of same sex marriage provide no remedy for the 'problems' you cite. *Making your argument irrelevant again.

*The Supreme Court explicitly contradicts you. *You ignore the Supreme Court insisting that you know better.

Um.....so? Your pseudo-legal gibberish has nothing to do with our law nor has the slightest impact on any legal outcome.

Get used to the idea. As ignoring the Supreme Court isn't actually a legal argument.



> You can't. And that's a fact. Children (as a whole, who are all bound to the new law over time) were not represented at Obergefell as to their unique share of the marriage contract. And that is a mistrial. And, from the polling results it is clear here that an overwhelming majority of the American public agree with me on this fact.



There's no requirement that 'all children' be represented in a Supreme Court hearing.

No Supreme Court hearing has ever included a 'representative' for 'all children' in the Court's history.

A Supreme Court hearing isn't a 'trial'. Making your babble about a 'mistrial' more ignorant nonsense.

Try again.


----------



## Debra K

80zephyr said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We humans do make the rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do, but not all the time. The laws of nature don't change.  Would you be happy if murder or pedophilia was legalized? Do you feel it would be a help or a hindrance to the human condition.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im glad I don't live in a society that condolns those things but I don't like gay people having to live in the closet. They are who they are. Like Peter Griffin said I like my beer cold and my homos flaming.
> 
> Sorry, the homosexual is one of many reasons I determined Christianity is just another ancient religion written by homophobic men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion has nothing to do with nature. If I start using religion, you have permission to stop me.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't speak for nature, Mark. Nor is marriage bound to your conceptions of nature.
> 
> Remember, you're nobody. Your subjective opinion has no relevance to anything we're discussing. Not the meaning of marriage, not the meaning of words, not the meaning of the laws.
> 
> We decide all those things. You decide none of it. Get used to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is this "we" you keep referring to?  It wasn't to long ago that "you" are where I am, being dictated to. The only difference is, that my stance was rational. Your side will also determine that Jenner is a woman. They are already.
> 
> Sorry, just because you are now in a position of power doesn't make your assertion any more sensible
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Our national society as a whole has been evolving since day one.  You are not "being dictated to."  You have liberty to apply your concept of marriage to your own life.   It appears, however, that you are lamenting the fact that you don't have the "power" to impose your ideas on everyone else in society.   Many countrymen have felt your pain.   Nevertheless, we have slowly progressed to include women and minorities within the classes of people entitled to enjoy the same civil rights that others enjoy.   I don't understand why you believe it is "more sensible" for our country to stand frozen in time for the purpose of empowering you and disempowering others.   Oppression of others is not a rational or admirable goal.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> The point is, marriage was invented to cure the ills of single parenthood. And precisely so that both either the actual creative parents (mom/dad) would be together, or at the very least a mother/father stand-in (adoptive man/wife, grandpa/grandma) for the sake of the childrens' future. In that Rule, all children involved have access to both their own gender as a role model and the opposite one to learn how to interact in an adult social world that contains both.


The fact is that you are ignoring your own standards. As when we're speaking of single parents, where a child is denied a 'mother and a father', you ignore it. Giving it a complete pass based on 'hope'.

'Hope' isn't a mother and a father. You've ignored your own standards, wiping your ass with your own rationale. And this despite single parenthood being orders of magnitude more common than same sex parenting. If even you are going to ignore your argument, surely you can understand why we don't have much use for it.

Especially when Sy utterly obliterated your argument with the observation that you oppose a child having two mothers and no father. But have no problem with a child having only one mom and no father.

Which is just silly. 



> One of the provisions of the Infant Doctrine regarding children and necessities is that a well rounded social preparation for later life is considered a necessity. Gay marriage by its very structure, destroys half of that foundation 100% of the time. That causes wounds to children and leaves them ill prepared for life. Causing wounds to children or damaging them socially is strictly forbidden in contract law when adults are implicitly involved in contracts with children. So any contract that wounds or damages children is void upon its face without legal challenge.



I believe you're referring to the Infancy Doctrine. And it says nothing you do. The Infancy Doctrine regards *explicit* minor contracts that bind children, like say a contract with a child actor. *No court nor law recognizing marriage of parents as creating a minor contract for their children. *

You do, citing your imagination. And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

*See, Sil....this, right here, is why your every legal prediction is wrong. *You keep citing your imagination as the law, making up pseudo-legal gibberish that no law nor court recognizes. And then demanding that the actual courts abide your imagination while ignoring the law.

And they don't.



> Any person, persons, judge, tribunal or attorneys seeking to show the world that gay marriage "doesn't harm children and in fact is good for them" has the burden upon them to FIRST demonstrate that beyond a shadow of a doubt (and, good luck with that) BEFORE any revisions to the marriage contract can happen where children are deprived of either a mother or father for life as a binding legal condition.



Says you. The Supreme Court is under no such burden, nor has any obligation to 'prove' anything to you. Their findings explicitly contradict you. So you ignore the Supreme Court.

*Ignoring the Supreme Court is not a legal argument.*


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Syriusly said:


> Marriage is what we say it is.



  Only in the same delusional manner that you could state that _“Bruce Jenner is a woman because we say he is.”_




Syriusly said:


> In some countries, marriage includes polygamous marriages, where one man is married to many women. In our own country, that existed for a brief time within the Mormon communities of Utah- they said that marriage was one man and many women.
> 
> In some societies in the Himalayas, marriage has included 1 woman and several men.
> 
> In human history, marriage has included many 'conditions' that we don't consider acceptable now
> 
> Child marriage
> Ban's on inter-religious marriage
> Ban's on inter-racial marriage
> Women as chattel- wives essentially became the property of her husband
> You insist that 'marriage' only exists as your definition- but reality shows that your 'reality' is just your prejudiced opinion.



  What do all of these scenarios that you list have in common, with genuine marriage as we now now it, but not in common with _“same-sex ‘marriage’”_?

  In which of these scenarios was it ever delusionally thought that there could be such a thing as a “marriage” between two people of the same sex?

  Marriage always has and always will be between a man and a woman.  Trying to call relationship between two men or between two women a “marriage”, and even getting it recognized as such by law, doesn't make it so.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is what we say it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in the same delusional manner that you could state that _“Bruce Jenner is a woman because we say he is.”_
Click to expand...


Or in acknowledgement of historic, linguistic and legal reality. As marriage has changed often over the years. You pretend it never has.

We're not obligated to pretend with you. 


> What do all of these scenarios that you list have in common, with genuine marriage as we now now it, but not in common with _“same-sex ‘marriage’”_?
> 
> In which of these scenarios was it ever delusionally thought that there could be such a thing as a “marriage” between two people of the same sex?
> 
> Marriage always has and always will be between a man and a woman.  Trying to call relationship between two men or between two women a “marriage”, and even getting it recognized as such by law, doesn't make it so.



Except when it isn't. Children are neither men nor women. Marriage has occurred between children and the SPIRITS of dead children. Sometimes the numbers are different, with one man and many women. Sometimes its a union of equals. Sometimes its a business arrangement. And sometimes it includes men and men. Or women and women.

Your insistence that the version of marriage that you're comfortable with defines the sole meaning of the term is, of course, nonsense. 

As the meaning changes when we say it changes. We invented marriage. And it defines what we decide it defines.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is what we say it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in the same delusional manner that you could
Click to expand...


Nothing delusional at all about calling marriage what it is- marriage as defined in the dictionary- and by law- is the union of two consenting adults.

What is delusional is still denying that gay couples are not marrying.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Marriage always has and always will be between a man and a woman.  Trying to call relationship between two men or between two women a “marriage”, and even getting it recognized as such by law, doesn't make it so.



Except- of course it hasn't.

Marriage has been among other things:

between a boy and a girl
between a man and a girl
between a boy and a woman
between a man and many women
between a woman and many men
between two adults of either gender


----------



## rcfieldz

Am I the only one who thinks the OP may need to be neutered?


----------



## Silhouette

rcfieldz said:


> Am I the only one who thinks the OP may need to be neutered?



Why?  Because I asked people if they had a mother and father in their life and thought it was important?  

Yeah, I bet that pisses you off.  Good.    80-90% in favor.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> rcfieldz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Am I the only one who thinks the OP may need to be neutered?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Because I asked people if they had a mother and father in their life and thought it was important?
> 
> Yeah, I bet that pisses you off.  Good.    80-90% in favor.
Click to expand...


Wait...I thought those numbers meant 80-90% of Americans don't support gay marriage? lol


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Wait...I thought those numbers meant 80-90% of Americans don't support gay marriage? lol



Exactly.  80-90% of Americans don't support imprisoning children away from either a father or mother for life.  Interchangeable concepts.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> rcfieldz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Am I the only one who thinks the OP may need to be neutered?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Because I asked people if they had a mother and father in their life and thought it was important?
> 
> Yeah, I bet that pisses you off.  Good.    80-90% in favor.
Click to expand...


Perhaps cause you keep fronting a fallacy even you know is unsupportable. Your entire argument, your justification, your very motivation breaks on the same cartoon simple question:

*How does denying marriage to same sex parents help their kids?*

You have no answer. And you know you have no answer. You know your proposal would do nothing but hurt children and help none. But you'll gladly hurt any number of children if it means you can hurt gay people too.

And that's quite simply loathsome.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...I thought those numbers meant 80-90% of Americans don't support gay marriage? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  80-90% of Americans don't support imprisoning children away from either a father or mother for life.  Interchangeable concepts.
Click to expand...


The gender of a child's parents isn't determined by marriage. Nor does denying marriage to same sex parents magically change them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children will never have married parents. Which hurts their children while helping none.

But you already know all that. You know your 'solution' of denying marriage to same sex parents does nothing to remedy your 'problem' of same sex parenting. But it would hurt gay people. And that's more than enough justification for you to hurt hundreds of thousands of children to do it.

Nope. We're not doing any of that.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Skylar said:


> The gender of a child's parents isn't determined by marriage. Nor does denying marriage to same sex parents magically change them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children will never have married parents. Which hurts their children while helping none.



  Of course, you are deliberately missing the important point, here.  You're defending a situation in which children are intentionally put into a broken mockery of a “family”, that is missing one parent, and in which a duplicate of the other parent is offered in stead—a child who has no mother and two “fathers”, or a child with no father and two “mothers”.

  This is an unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral situation in which to put these children; and piling on top of it the fraud of declaring these two same-sex “parents” to be “married” to each other does nothing to mitigate it.  Just more lies and madness on top of a situation that is already based on lies and madness.

  If you really care about the welfare of these children, then you ought to be totally opposed to putting them in this situation to begin with; rather than merely offering them a hollow fraud that tries to put an unconvincing veneer of normality on what is unalterably and undisguisably an abnormal and unnatural arrangement.

  I think it is clear enough that your motive has nothing at all to do with the welfare of the children that are involved, but rather with the interests of the sick perverts who would use these children as cover for their own selfish and perverted agenda.


----------



## Claudette

You bet your ass I had two parents.

Parents who were busy being parents and not trying to be my best friend.

Parents who kicked my ass when I needed it and gave praise when deserved.

Both are gone now and I appreciate them every day as do my siblings.


----------



## JoeB131

sealybobo said:


> No. In your scenario the law should be the father participates financially even if he won't emotionally in the child's life.
> 
> A lot of single moms do fine with what they got. Especially if their spouse dies. But dont pretend its a positive thing for kids cause it aint.
> 
> And you make a good point not all fathers make good dads. Some kids are better off without their fathers. No ones going to eliminate all bad parents but we can certainly lower the numbers. Why are you pro one parent homes?
> 
> And no one wants to take your kid away. You had him now raise him. We're sick of you raising piss poor humans.



I'm tired of listening to people blame their parents for what shitty people they are. 

But since even POTENTIAL Children are more important that the happiness of adults, we need to put people in servitude to their children.  THis is the retarded argument that Silly-wet is using to try to hide his psychopathic homophobia (read latent homosexuality) behind


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...I thought those numbers meant 80-90% of Americans don't support gay marriage? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  80-90% of Americans don't support imprisoning children away from either a father or mother for life.  Interchangeable concepts.
Click to expand...


You do realize the only person you are fooling is yourself, right?


----------



## sealybobo

JoeB131 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. In your scenario the law should be the father participates financially even if he won't emotionally in the child's life.
> 
> A lot of single moms do fine with what they got. Especially if their spouse dies. But dont pretend its a positive thing for kids cause it aint.
> 
> And you make a good point not all fathers make good dads. Some kids are better off without their fathers. No ones going to eliminate all bad parents but we can certainly lower the numbers. Why are you pro one parent homes?
> 
> And no one wants to take your kid away. You had him now raise him. We're sick of you raising piss poor humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tired of listening to people blame their parents for what shitty people they are.
> 
> But since even POTENTIAL Children are more important that the happiness of adults, we need to put people in servitude to their children.  THis is the retarded argument that Silly-wet is using to try to hide his psychopathic homophobia (read latent homosexuality) behind
Click to expand...

Im tired of seeing almost every criminals didn't have a dad. Hard to ignore it is partially their parents fault. Doesn't mean the criminal should not be punished but is there a way to get parents to be better parents?

I watch my brother with his kids and wonder why isn't every dad that involved.

Not every man is equal. Think about all the 18 year old guys who are getting laid. How many of them would be good parents?

We really are lucky if we were born to two good parents.


----------



## Inevitable

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...I thought those numbers meant 80-90% of Americans don't support gay marriage? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  80-90% of Americans don't support imprisoning children away from either a father or mother for life.  Interchangeable concepts.
Click to expand...

Luckily this dishonesty doesn't work in most cases


----------



## mdk

Inevitable said:


> Luckily this dishonesty doesn't work in most cases



It only works to confirm Sil's bias. The instant she can't find a way to use children to harm gay people, she discards them into the trash.


----------



## Inevitable

mdk said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Luckily this dishonesty doesn't work in most cases
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only works to confirm Sil's bias. The instant she can't find a way to use children to harm gay people, she discards them into the trash.
Click to expand...

It would only eek with people that already agree, thus it doesn't work at all. Because people already feel that way.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gender of a child's parents isn't determined by marriage. Nor does denying marriage to same sex parents magically change them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children will never have married parents. Which hurts their children while helping none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you are deliberately missing the important point, here.  You're defending a situation in which children are intentionally put into a broken mockery of a “family”, that is missing one parent, and in which a duplicate of the other parent is offered in stead—a child who has no mother and two “fathers”, or a child with no father and two “mothers”.
Click to expand...


You're railing against same sex _parenting_. Which occurs regardless of same sex _marriage_. If you recognize marriage for same sex couples, if you deny gays marriage.....*same sex parents are still same sex parents. *Denying same sex parents marriage doesn't remedy anything you're complaining about. Its simply irrelevant to it.

A point that just obliterates your entire argument.

And just to demonstrate once again how flagrantly disingenuous your entire argument is, I'll ask you the same question I did before. And watch you evade, weasel and refuse to answer. As you've been railing against same sex parenting, calling it unnatural, immoral, lies and madness...

*......are you calling for the children of same sex parents to be taken from them?*

If yes, just admit it. If no, then I have *how, pray tell, does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? *

We both know you have no answer for that either. But its fun to have you make my argument for me by awkwardly trying to avoid the question.


> This is an unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral situation in which to put these children; and piling on top of it the fraud of declaring these two same-sex “parents” to be “married” to each other does nothing to mitigate it.  Just more lies and madness on top of a situation that is already based on lies and madness.



Unnatural, immoral, lies and madness....according to who? Remember, Bob......your Begging the Question fallacy isn't actually evidence. Which is why your insistence that marriage is only what *you* believe it is failed so utterly. And you're no more the lone arbiter of nature, morality, truth or sanity than you are marriage.


----------



## Silhouette

Inevitable said:


> It only works to confirm Sil's bias.



Don't forget the rest of the 80-90%'s "bias" also inevitable.  Though one man's "bias" is another man's "clear majority".


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> It only works to confirm Sil's bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget the rest of the 80-90%'s "bias" also inevitable.  Though one man's "bias" is another man's "clear majority".
Click to expand...


Did you forget that your poll asks nothing about marriage....and yet you're babbling about marriage?


----------



## Inevitable

Silhouette said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> It only works to confirm Sil's bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget the rest of the 80-90%'s "bias" also inevitable.  Though one man's "bias" is another man's "clear majority".
Click to expand...

that imprisoning of a child hyperbole isn't going to work. We aren't talking about imprisoning a child or taking them away from their parents.

You're figures are meaningless


----------



## Inevitable

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> It only works to confirm Sil's bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget the rest of the 80-90%'s "bias" also inevitable.  Though one man's "bias" is another man's "clear majority".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you forget that your poll asks nothing about marriage....and yet you're babbling about marriage?
Click to expand...

Dishonest misrepresentation of data doesn't ever seem to be the foundation of a good argument


----------



## Skylar

Inevitable said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> It only works to confirm Sil's bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget the rest of the 80-90%'s "bias" also inevitable.  Though one man's "bias" is another man's "clear majority".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you forget that your poll asks nothing about marriage....and yet you're babbling about marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dishonest misrepresentation of data doesn't ever seem to be the foundation of a good argument
Click to expand...


Without the dishonest misrepresentation of data, Sil's posts would be little more than punctuation.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Without the dishonest misrepresentation of data, Sil's posts would be little more than punctuation.


What "dishonest misrepresentation"?  Are you saying that people can't read the poll at the top of this page?

89.2 % of people think that not having gay marriage is important to children.  Where "gay marriage' = "children being without either a mother or father for life as a contractual imposition".  And yes, anyone can draw that conclusion because it is factually correct that "gay marriage" does this to kids 100% of the time..


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the dishonest misrepresentation of data, Sil's posts would be little more than punctuation.
> 
> 
> 
> What "dishonest misrepresentation"?  Are you saying that people can't read the poll at the top of this page?
Click to expand...


You've represented this poll as an opposition to gay marriage. It doesn't even mention marriage. Yet you still try to misreprsent it: Watch, in the very next sentence after the one I just quoted, you do it again:



> 89.2 % of people think that not having gay marriage is important to children.



_Your poll doesn't even mention gay marriage. Or marriage of any kind._ Yet you lie and say that its results are those who think 'not having gay marriage is important to children'.

You can't help yourself. *Your compulsive obsession to lie about gay people is *way* outside your ability to control.* But not outside our ability to point and laugh at.



> Where "gay marriage' = "children being without either a mother or father for life as a contractual imposition".



Nope. Another misrepresentation. You're railing against same sex *parenting*. Not same sex marriage. As marriage doesn't define the gender of your parents. Nor is it necessary to start a family. Its simply beneficial to the children to have married parents.

Recognize gay marriage or deny gays marriage....*same sex parents are still same sex parents.* And denying them marriage  doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children will never have married parents.

Which hurts those children and help none.

Denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't remedy *anything* you're complaining about. While denying marriage to same sex parents does hurt children by the hundreds of thousands.

All of which you know. But you intentionally misrepresent.


----------



## Inevitable

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the dishonest misrepresentation of data, Sil's posts would be little more than punctuation.
> 
> 
> 
> What "dishonest misrepresentation"?  Are you saying that people can't read the poll at the top of this page?
> 
> 89.2 % of people think that not having gay marriage is important to children.  Where "gay marriage' = "children being without either a mother or father for life as a contractual imposition".  And yes, anyone can draw that conclusion because it is factually correct that "gay marriage" does this to kids 100% of the time..
Click to expand...

You are doing some reaching.


----------



## Silhouette

"My poll doesn't mention gay marriage"...waa waa waa waaaaaa.  Loving v Virginia didn't mention gay marriage either.  Yet you held it up like a victory flag as your key case law for winning Obergefell.  

If gay marriage does not provide either a mother or father for life, and if 89% of Americans think children having both a mother and father for life is important, then, how do you suppose those people would wake up to feel if it was pointed out to them clearly and succinctly what they might not have considered: "Oh, yeah...hey..wait a minute..!"

All it takes is a loud enough amplifier.


----------



## Katzndogz

Nothing provides a child with a mother or a father for life.  There is no provision in American law for contractual imposition.  The closest we come is a third party beneficiary contract. That's where two parties enter into a contract for the benefit of a third party.  

Here is where you have gone totally off the rails.  It's thinking that having both a mother and a father is necessary to raising a functional adult.  I think so.  You think so.  A lot of people think so.  Not enough people think so.  The furthest the majority will go is saying that two parents are necessary to raise a child into a functional adult.  And two parents aren't even necessary for that.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> "My poll doesn't mention gay marriage"...waa waa waa waaaaaa.



No, it doesn't. You lie about it constantly.

You can't help yourself.



> Loving v Virginia didn't mention gay marriage either.  Yet you held it up like a victory flag as your key case law for winning Obergefell.



Yet it certainly mentioned marriage and unconstitutional restrictions upon it. Which is what the court's cited it as.

And I held it up as one of the many, many examples of my understanding of the Windsor case.....and my accurate predictions on the outcome of Obergefell. And one of the many, many examples of your utter lack of understanding in the Windsor case. And your laughably inaccurate predictions on the Obergefell ruling.

Remember, you're *always* wrong in your legal predictions. Your record is one of *perfect failure. *



> If gay marriage does not provide either a mother or father for life, and if 89% of Americans think children having both a mother and father for life is important, then, how do you suppose those people would wake up to feel if it was pointed out to them clearly and succinctly what they might not have considered: "Oh, yeah...hey..wait a minute..!"



Nope. That's just you making shit up, unable to control your compulsion to lie about gay people.

You can't help yourself.



> All it takes is a loud enough amplifier.




Yawning.....nope. You're just thumb sucking. Desperately trying to convince yourself of another piece of hapless pseudo-legal gibberish that you imagine will sooth the dissonance between what you imagined....and what the world actually is.

It won't. Nor has it ever.


----------



## Skylar

Tipsycatlover said:


> Nothing provides a child with a mother or a father for life.  There is no provision in American law for contractual imposition.



I didn't think so. My understanding of contract imposition is that it exists only in UK law. Not US law.



> The closest we come is a third party beneficiary contract. That's where two parties enter into a contract for the benefit of a third party.



That's not even close to contract imposition. As the contract imposed under UK law obligates the parties bound to it. In a beneficiary arrangement, the beneficiary is never obligated under contract.

Making the two as fundamentally different as being bound by a contract. And *not *being bound by a contract. 

They're literal opposites.


----------



## Katzndogz

Skylar said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing provides a child with a mother or a father for life.  There is no provision in American law for contractual imposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think so. My understanding of contract imposition is that it exists only in UK law. Not US law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The closest we come is a third party beneficiary contract. That's where two parties enter into a contract for the benefit of a third party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not even close to contract imposition. As the contract imposed under UK law obligates the parties bound to it. In a beneficiary arrangement, the beneficiary is never obligated under contract.
> 
> Making the two as fundamentally different as being bound by a contract. And *not *being bound by a contract.
> 
> They're literal opposites.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, the closest we come to the tortured obligation of a third party is the third party beneficiary contract. That it's not applicable, or even useful, only illustrates that there is nothing in our laws that remotely applies.  

I personally feel that imposing same sex parents on a child is a form of child abuse.  There is no legal argument against same sex parenting.  Raising children into twisted, dysfunctional adults is not against the law.


----------



## Silhouette

Tipsycatlover said:


> Nothing provides a child with a mother or a father for life.  There is no provision in American law for contractual imposition.





Tipsycatlover said:


> Nevertheless, the closest we come to the tortured obligation of a third party is the third party beneficiary contract. That it's not applicable, or even useful, only illustrates that there is nothing in our laws that remotely applies.
> 
> I personally feel that imposing same sex parents on a child is a form of child abuse.  There is no legal argument against same sex parenting.  Raising children into twisted, dysfunctional adults is not against the law.



Oh but there absolutely is a legal argument.  Marriage is a contract between two adults because of children.  You'd have to prove that isn't historically true and contemporarily important.  Whether the contract is written or implied doesn't matter, it is equally binding.  Children (in general) had a share in that contract.. They enjoyed unique benefits to themselves up until last Summer.  In fact, marriage was created for them, to cure the many social ills of all the inferior situations to a child finding himself in a home with both a mother and father that would last "till death do they part".  Even then, widows and widowers sought to or were encouraged to remarry "for the sake of the children". 

So, you're very first pitch out of the chute defending that "children aren't part of the marriage contract" (because if there's a question of harm to children, the burden would be upon that side promoting the deprivation, and not the side advocating the status quo on behalf of a child's previous enjoyment) would be to convince the court that "the marriage contract is in no way about children".  And in the case of this thread, it might be handy to have on your side the sentiments of society at large behind you.  Because the indication of the poll says that about 80-90% of Americans believe that a child having both a mother and father is important.

Also, you'd have to prove that boys without a father or girls without a mother fared equally well to their peers.  Might want to read this before you prepare those arguments: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

So, good luck!


----------



## Skylar

Tipsycatlover said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing provides a child with a mother or a father for life.  There is no provision in American law for contractual imposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think so. My understanding of contract imposition is that it exists only in UK law. Not US law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The closest we come is a third party beneficiary contract. That's where two parties enter into a contract for the benefit of a third party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not even close to contract imposition. As the contract imposed under UK law obligates the parties bound to it. In a beneficiary arrangement, the beneficiary is never obligated under contract.
> 
> Making the two as fundamentally different as being bound by a contract. And *not *being bound by a contract.
> 
> They're literal opposites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nevertheless, the closest we come to the tortured obligation of a third party is the third party beneficiary contract. That it's not applicable, or even useful, only illustrates that there is nothing in our laws that remotely applies.
Click to expand...


Literal opposites is not the closest we can come. The closest we can come to an imposed contract...is a court order.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Tipsycatlover said:


> I personally feel that imposing same sex parents on a child is a form of child abuse.  There is no legal argument against same sex parenting.  Raising children into twisted, dysfunctional adults is not against the law.



  The legal argument is only lost due to a corruption of the law which denies certain  important realities in place of politically-correct madness in the name of _“equality”_.  The hard truth is that homosexual pairings are not, and never will be, the same as heterosexual pairings, will never be able to properly fulfill the same purpose, and will never be _“equal”_, no matter how much the law tries to declare them to be.  Calling a homosexual pairing a _“marriage”_ does not make it so, and does not enable it to fulfill the same purpose as a genuine marriage; and allowing children to be adopted into such a mockery fulfills only the selfish interests of immoral perverts, at the expense of the children whose own interests are disregarded in doing so.


----------



## Silhouette

Bob Blaylock said:


> *The legal argument is only lost due to* a corruption of the law which denies certain  important realities in place of politically-correct madness in the name of _“equality”_.  The hard truth is that homosexual pairings are not, and never will be, the same as heterosexual pairings, will never be able to properly fulfill the same purpose, and will never be _“equal”_, no matter how much the law tries to declare them to be.  Calling a homosexual pairing a _“marriage”_ does not make it so, and does not enable it to fulfill the same purpose as a genuine marriage; and allowing children to be adopted into such a mockery fulfills only the selfish interests of immoral perverts, at the expense of the children whose own interests are disregarded in doing so.


Actually it's hard to lose a legal argument that hasn't yet been made before a court.  Stay tuned...


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing provides a child with a mother or a father for life.  There is no provision in American law for contractual imposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, the closest we come to the tortured obligation of a third party is the third party beneficiary contract. That it's not applicable, or even useful, only illustrates that there is nothing in our laws that remotely applies.
> 
> I personally feel that imposing same sex parents on a child is a form of child abuse.  There is no legal argument against same sex parenting.  Raising children into twisted, dysfunctional adults is not against the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh but there absolutely is a legal argument.
Click to expand...


Nope. Remember, you ignoring the Supreme Court and making shit up isn't a legal argument. Let me demonstrate:



> Marriage is a contract between two adults because of children.



Nope. The right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. Says who? Why the Supreme Court itself:



			
				Obergefell v. Hodges said:
			
		

> This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.



You straight up ignoring binding legal precedent and the explicit findings of the Supreme Court and replace them both with whatever you imagine.

That's not a legal argument. 


> You'd have to prove that isn't historically true and contemporarily important.  Whether the contract is written or implied doesn't matter, it is equally binding.



Nope. There's no such requirement. You made it up. You can type whatever pseudo-legal gibberish you like, make up whatever you want.

But its still has nothing to do with the actual law or actual precedent. Thus, none of your imaginary 'requirements' exist. 

See how this works?



> Children (in general) had a share in that contract..



Says you. Show us any court or law that recognizes that a marriage of parents creates a minor contract for children. Or any court or law that finds that children are married to their parents, as you have insisted.

There is none. You made it up. And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

Noticing a pattern yet?


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally feel that imposing same sex parents on a child is a form of child abuse.  There is no legal argument against same sex parenting.  Raising children into twisted, dysfunctional adults is not against the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The legal argument is only lost due to a corruption of the law which denies certain  important realities in place of politically-correct madness in the name of _“equality”_.
Click to expand...


Or...neither the law nor society accept you as defining anything about marriage. And you citing your personal opinion doesn't create any objective definitions. Nor have the slightest relevance to anyone's marriage.



> The hard truth is that homosexual pairings are not, and never will be, the same as heterosexual pairings, will never be able to properly fulfill the same purpose, and will never be _“equal”_, no matter how much the law tries to declare them to be.



The hard truth is that marriage is invented by us. Its basis and definition are whatever we say they are.

You insist that marriage is only what *you* say it is. And you're nobody. 

Get used to the idea.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The legal argument is only lost due to* a corruption of the law which denies certain  important realities in place of politically-correct madness in the name of _“equality”_.  The hard truth is that homosexual pairings are not, and never will be, the same as heterosexual pairings, will never be able to properly fulfill the same purpose, and will never be _“equal”_, no matter how much the law tries to declare them to be.  Calling a homosexual pairing a _“marriage”_ does not make it so, and does not enable it to fulfill the same purpose as a genuine marriage; and allowing children to be adopted into such a mockery fulfills only the selfish interests of immoral perverts, at the expense of the children whose own interests are disregarded in doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's hard to lose a legal argument that hasn't yet been made before a court.  Stay tuned...
Click to expand...


Laughing.....you said the same thing about the Kim Davis appeal. The Obergefell ruling. The Kennedy stay of Utah. The '56 times' of the Windsor ruling. 

How'd those turn out again?


----------



## Katzndogz

Marriage was never a contract between adults for the benefit of children.  Children were never more than the result of men and women coupling.  

Originally the marriage contract was the physical manifestation of peace agreements and trade treaties.   Then marriage was a way to amass fortunes.  Far from being a beneficiary of a contract beween a loving mother and father, girls were items of barter.  With the consolidation of money and power came the protection of that money and power by primogenenture.  The eldest son inherits everything.  Far from being the beneficiary of a contract beween a loving mother and father, subsequent sons were worthless.  Most of the time a caring mother might protect a juvenile.   Once an adult second sons were normally cast out.  

That's historically.   Today, children are not only not part of a marriage contract,  but contracts like pre nups and the like don't mention children at all.  Children are raised by single parents that have never been married, divorced parents, same sex family members and same sex couples.

In Europe, somewhat ahead of the curve, most children don't live in families at all.  They are raised by a single mother with transitory father figures which may be male or female.  Marriage is just not that popular.


----------



## Skylar

Tipsycatlover said:


> Marriage was never a contract between adults for the benefit of children.  Children were never more than the result of men and women coupling.
> 
> Originally the marriage contract was the physical manifestation of peace agreements and trade treaties.   Then marriage was a way to amass fortunes.  Far from being a beneficiary of a contract beween a loving mother and father, girls were items of barter.  With the consolidation of money and power came the protection of that money and power by primogenenture.  The eldest son inherits everything.  Far from being the beneficiary of a contract beween a loving mother and father, subsequent sons were worthless.  Most of the time a caring mother might protect a juvenile.   Once an adult second sons were normally cast out.
> 
> That's historically.   Today, children are not only not part of a marriage contract,  but contracts like pre nups and the like don't mention children at all.  Children are raised by single parents that have never been married, divorced parents, same sex family members and same sex couples.
> 
> In Europe, somewhat ahead of the curve, most children don't live in families at all.  They are raised by a single mother with transitory father figures which may be male or female.  Marriage is just not that popular.



Its safe to say that marriage has many roles, many bases, many definitions over time. Making any argument that marriage comes in only one flavor and that flavor is absolute an act of desperate, willful ignorance.


----------



## rightwinger

Can you imagine if Silhouette was your mother?


----------



## mdk

rightwinger said:


> Can you imagine if Silhouette was your mother?



Blaming every burnt dinner and crop failure on homos. lol


----------



## Silhouette

Tipsycatlover said:


> *Marriage was never a contract between adults for the benefit of children*.  Children were never more than the result of men and women coupling. ....Originally the marriage contract was the physical manifestation of peace agreements and trade treaties.   Then marriage was a way to amass fortunes.  Far from being a beneficiary of a contract beween a loving mother and father, girls were items of barter.  With the consolidation of money and power came the protection of that money and power by primogenenture.  The eldest son inherits everything.  Far from being the beneficiary of a contract beween a loving mother and father, subsequent sons were worthless.  Most of the time a caring mother might protect a juvenile.   Once an adult second sons were normally cast out.....That's historically.   Today, children are not only not part of a marriage contract,  but contracts like pre nups and the like don't mention children at all.  Children are raised by single parents that have never been married, divorced parents, same sex family members and same sex couples....In Europe, somewhat ahead of the curve, most children don't live in families at all.  They are raised by a single mother with transitory father figures which may be male or female.  Marriage is just not that popular.



Hey so your points are that marriage in the past was a dysfunctional allegiance/contract including adults and kids...but not that it did not include kids...because you talk quite a lot about how the word "marriage" allowed adults to do certain things with or to kids.  If married people tried to give away someone else's daughter in marriage, there'd have been a problem for sure.  So the "marriage contract" was intrinsic to what adults could and could not do with children even back in the dark ages.  However, BEFORE THAT when Og and Thula built their fire and fried their goat meat over it for sustenance, their society bonded them together for the sake of not wanting orphaned kids or a single mother where then that was a death sentence to any children she would bear or an undue burden upon the clan.  So, marriage WAS invented to cure the ills of children not having a mother & father...LATER..marriage included some shady shit where kids were treated badly.

TODAY (if you will examine the poll above at top of this page) society deems marriage to be a contract that is "important" to children in that it bonds together a mother and father so that they can grow up in regular contact with these two people.  So TODAY'S definition of the contract is the binding one.  My points about Og and Thula are here for the oldest historical perspective on how society knows that children who are deprived of either a mother or father come to peril.

You can make your argument that an even newer interpretation of the original intent (mother and father for children) that gays would result in just as well-rounded of citizens as straights for parents of children who IN FACT share the marriage contract IMPLICITLY with adults.  But you cannot make an argument that marriage and its terms do not impact children....because you just made that argument in your statement above!

But there is an obstacle in the way of any argument that "gays are just as good for kids as straights when it comes to married parents".  And here it is:  PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY ...Added to the poll results at the top of the page where 80-90% of Americans believe a child having both a mother and father is "important" to that child....


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Marriage was never a contract between adults for the benefit of children*.  Children were never more than the result of men and women coupling. ....Originally the marriage contract was the physical manifestation of peace agreements and trade treaties.   Then marriage was a way to amass fortunes.  Far from being a beneficiary of a contract beween a loving mother and father, girls were items of barter.  With the consolidation of money and power came the protection of that money and power by primogenenture.  The eldest son inherits everything.  Far from being the beneficiary of a contract beween a loving mother and father, subsequent sons were worthless.  Most of the time a caring mother might protect a juvenile.   Once an adult second sons were normally cast out.....That's historically.   Today, children are not only not part of a marriage contract,  but contracts like pre nups and the like don't mention children at all.  Children are raised by single parents that have never been married, divorced parents, same sex family members and same sex couples....In Europe, somewhat ahead of the curve, most children don't live in families at all.  They are raised by a single mother with transitory father figures which may be male or female.  Marriage is just not that popular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey so your points are that marriage in the past was a dysfunctional allegiance/contract including adults and kids...but not that it did not include kids...because you talk quite a lot about how the word "marriage" allowed adults to do certain things with or to kids.  If married people tried to give away someone else's daughter in marriage, there'd have been a problem for sure.  So the "marriage contract" was intrinsic to what adults could and could not do with children even back in the dark ages.  However, BEFORE THAT when Og and Thula built their fire and fried their goat meat over it for sustenance, their society bonded them together for the sake of not wanting orphaned kids or a single mother where then that was a death sentence to any children she would bear or an undue burden upon the clan.  So, marriage WAS invented to cure the ills of children not having a mother & father...LATER..marriage included some shady shit where kids were treated badly.
Click to expand...


There's nothing 'intrinsic' about marriage. Marriage is our invention. Its basis, its meaning, its application.....is whatever we say it is. Or whatever another culture says it is in their own jurisdiction.

As the changing definitions of marriage over time and geography demonstrate. 

In our culture and our law.....the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. Simply destroying your argument.


----------



## Katzndogz

There's no historical perspective saying that a mother and father are important to a child's well being.  Possibly because it was such a self evident truth it didn't need to be said.

Today,  we find ourselves in the outrageous position that raising dysfunctional unhappy children into dysfunctional unhappy adults is preferable to normal well adjusted adults. 

Whether you like it or not, this is the pathological society.  Medicate everyone, everyone into therapy and there's no such thing as normal.


----------



## Skylar

Oh, and this should probably be given the 2 minutes necessary to shred:



> *CHILDREN IMPLICITLY SHARE IN THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT, BUT WERE WITHOUT REPRESENTATION AT OBERGEFELL 2015.*



No court nor law recognizes that a marriage of parents creates a minor contract. You made that up.

No supreme court hearing has ever had a 'representative' for 'all children' in the history of the Supreme Court. You made that up. 



> *
> "...some contracts cannot be voided....perhaps the biggest area of enforceable minor contracts deals with necessaries, which consist of goods reasonably necessary for subsistence, health, comfort or education. As such, contracts furnishing these items to a minor cannot be disaffirmed. *



These are all explicit contracts, like say.....a minor trying to obtain a mortgage. Or child actors. No court nor law recognizes a marriage of parents as creating any minor contract. Destroying your entire argument. 



> *<< A NECESSITY PER CONTRACT: FATHER AND MOTHER TO BOYS AND GIRLS Contracts of Minors ‘Quartet of Truth’: Adult children of gay parents testify against same-sex ‘marriage’ at 5th Circuit Prince's Trust 2010 Survey: http://www.youreffortmatters.com/princes-trust-2010-youth-index-survey.html*



No court nor law has found that a father and mother to boys and girls is a 'necessity per contract'. You made that up.

The Prince's Trust Study never so much as mentions mothers or fathers. Nor gays, gay marriage, or same sex parenting.  You made that up too. 

And your imagination is legally irrelevant.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gender of a child's parents isn't determined by marriage. Nor does denying marriage to same sex parents magically change them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children will never have married parents. Which hurts their children while helping none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you are deliberately missing the important point, here.  You're defending a situation in which children are intentionally put into a broken mockery of a “family”, that is missing one parent, and in which a duplicate of the other parent is offered in stead—a child who has no mother and two “fathers”, or a child with no father and two “mothers”.
> 
> This is an unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral situation in which to put these children; and piling on top of it the fraud of declaring these two same-sex “parents” to be “married” to each other does nothing to mitigate it.  Just more lies and madness on top of a situation that is already based on lies and madness.
> 
> If you really care about the welfare of these children, then you ought to be totally opposed to putting them in this situation to begin with; rather than merely offering them a hollow fraud that tries to put an unconvincing veneer of normality on what is unalterably and undisguisably an abnormal and unnatural arrangement.
> 
> I think it is clear enough that your motive has nothing at all to do with the welfare of the children that are involved, but rather with the interests of the sick perverts who would use these children as cover for their own selfish and perverted agenda.
Click to expand...


Even assuming that any of what you posted was actually true- preventing gay parents from marrying doesn't help any of those children.

Mary and Jane- unmarried- have 3 kids- kids have none of the legal protections of marriage.
Mary and Jane- marry- have the same 3 kids- now the kids have the legal protections of marriage.

Gay marriage only helps children- it harms no children.

Now- if your thesis is that being raised by gay parents is bad for kids- which it is- then tell us how you plan on preventing that?

Mandatory sterilization of gays?


----------



## Syriusly

sealybobo said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. In your scenario the law should be the father participates financially even if he won't emotionally in the child's life.
> 
> A lot of single moms do fine with what they got. Especially if their spouse dies. But dont pretend its a positive thing for kids cause it aint.
> 
> And you make a good point not all fathers make good dads. Some kids are better off without their fathers. No ones going to eliminate all bad parents but we can certainly lower the numbers. Why are you pro one parent homes?
> 
> And no one wants to take your kid away. You had him now raise him. We're sick of you raising piss poor humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tired of listening to people blame their parents for what shitty people they are.
> 
> But since even POTENTIAL Children are more important that the happiness of adults, we need to put people in servitude to their children.  THis is the retarded argument that Silly-wet is using to try to hide his psychopathic homophobia (read latent homosexuality) behind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We really are lucky if we were born to two good parents.
Click to expand...


After decades of watching families- I think a child is really lucky if they have one really good parent- they hit the jackpot if they have two really good parents.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the dishonest misrepresentation of data, Sil's posts would be little more than punctuation.
> 
> 
> 
> What "dishonest misrepresentation"?  .....
> 
> 89.2 % of people think that not having gay marriage is important to children.
Click to expand...


You answered your own question. 

All you do is misrepresent facts- except for when you are outright lying.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the dishonest misrepresentation of data, Sil's posts would be little more than punctuation.
> 
> 
> 
> What "dishonest misrepresentation"?  .....
> 
> 89.2 % of people think that not having gay marriage is important to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You answered your own question.All you do is misrepresent facts- except for when you are outright lying.
Click to expand...


Oh, look~  You guys buried my points on a "lost page" with ad hominems and strawmen AGAIN.  Where were we...?  Oh, yes...


Tipsycatlover said:


> *Marriage was never a contract between adults for the benefit of children*.  Children were never more than the result of men and women coupling. ....Originally the marriage contract was the physical manifestation of peace agreements and trade treaties.   Then marriage was a way to amass fortunes.  Far from being a beneficiary of a contract beween a loving mother and father, girls were items of barter.  With the consolidation of money and power came the protection of that money and power by primogenenture.  The eldest son inherits everything.  Far from being the beneficiary of a contract beween a loving mother and father, subsequent sons were worthless.  Most of the time a caring mother might protect a juvenile.   Once an adult second sons were normally cast out.....That's historically.   Today, children are not only not part of a marriage contract,  but contracts like pre nups and the like don't mention children at all.  Children are raised by single parents that have never been married, divorced parents, same sex family members and same sex couples....In Europe, somewhat ahead of the curve, most children don't live in families at all.  They are raised by a single mother with transitory father figures which may be male or female.  Marriage is just not that popular.



Hey so your points are that marriage in the past was a dysfunctional allegiance/contract including adults and kids...but not that it did not include kids...because you talk quite a lot about how the word "marriage" allowed adults to do certain things with or to kids.  If married people tried to give away someone else's daughter in marriage, there'd have been a problem for sure.  So the "marriage contract" was intrinsic to what adults could and could not do with children even back in the dark ages.  However, BEFORE THAT when Og and Thula built their fire and fried their goat meat over it for sustenance, their society bonded them together for the sake of not wanting orphaned kids or a single mother where then that was a death sentence to any children she would bear or an undue burden upon the clan.  So, marriage WAS invented to cure the ills of children not having a mother & father...LATER..marriage included some shady shit where kids were treated badly.

TODAY (if you will examine the poll above at top of this page) society deems marriage to be a contract that is "important" to children in that it bonds together a mother and father so that they can grow up in regular contact with these two people.  So TODAY'S definition of the contract is the binding one.  My points about Og and Thula are here for the oldest historical perspective on how society knows that children who are deprived of either a mother or father come to peril.

You can make your argument that an even newer interpretation of the original intent (mother and father for children) that gays would result in just as well-rounded of citizens as straights for parents of children who IN FACT share the marriage contract IMPLICITLY with adults.  But you cannot make an argument that marriage and its terms do not impact children....because you just made that argument in your statement above!

But there is an obstacle in the way of any argument that "gays are just as good for kids as straights when it comes to married parents".  And here it is:  PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY ...Added to the poll results at the top of the page where 80-90% of Americans believe a child having both a mother and father is "important" to that child....

*****

Make you a deal?  Since the mods never step in to stop you, I'll stop reposting my points if you stop purposefully acting in conspiracy to bury pages, OK?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing provides a child with a mother or a father for life.  There is no provision in American law for contractual imposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, the closest we come to the tortured obligation of a third party is the third party beneficiary contract. That it's not applicable, or even useful, only illustrates that there is nothing in our laws that remotely applies.
> 
> I personally feel that imposing same sex parents on a child is a form of child abuse.  There is no legal argument against same sex parenting.  Raising children into twisted, dysfunctional adults is not against the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh but there absolutely is a legal argument.  Marriage is a contract between two adults because of children. !
Click to expand...


That argument failed in both Obergefell and Loving v. Virginia.

Both of them.

Virginia argued that mixed race marriages harmed children- the Supreme Court rejected that argument.
The States argued that gay marriages harmed children- the Supreme Court rejected that argument.

That is a 'legal argument' that has already failed.

Twice.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the dishonest misrepresentation of data, Sil's posts would be little more than punctuation.
> 
> 
> 
> What "dishonest misrepresentation"?  .....
> 
> 89.2 % of people think that not having gay marriage is important to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You answered your own question.All you do is misrepresent facts- except for when you are outright lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, look~  You guys buried my points on a "lost page" with ad hominems and strawmen AGAIN.  .
Click to expand...


You have no points- you misrepresent the facts except for when you are outright lying.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without the dishonest misrepresentation of data, Sil's posts would be little more than punctuation.
> 
> 
> 
> What "dishonest misrepresentation"?  .....
> 
> 89.2 % of people think that not having gay marriage is important to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You answered your own question.All you do is misrepresent facts- except for when you are outright lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, look~  You guys buried my points on a "lost page" with ad hominems and strawmen AGAIN.  Where were we...?  Oh, yes...
Click to expand...


Oh, look. Sil's gonna start spamming again.




> Hey so your points are that marriage in the past was a dysfunctional allegiance/contract including adults and kids...but not that it did not include kids...because you talk quite a lot about how the word "marriage" allowed adults to do certain things with or to kids.  If married people tried to give away someone else's daughter in marriage, there'd have been a problem for sure.  So the "marriage contract" was intrinsic to what adults could and could not do with children even back in the dark ages.  However, BEFORE THAT when Og and Thula built their fire and fried their goat meat over it for sustenance, their society bonded them together for the sake of not wanting orphaned kids or a single mother where then that was a death sentence to any children she would bear or an undue burden upon the clan.  So, marriage WAS invented to cure the ills of children not having a mother & father...LATER..marriage included some shady shit where kids were treated badly.
> 
> TODAY (if you will examine the poll above at top of this page) society deems marriage to be a contract that is "important" to children in that it bonds together a mother and father so that they can grow up in regular contact with these two people.  So TODAY'S definition of the contract is the binding one.  My points about Og and Thula are here for the oldest historical perspective on how society knows that children who are deprived of either a mother or father come to peril.
> 
> You can make your argument that an even newer interpretation of the original intent (mother and father for children) that gays would result in just as well-rounded of citizens as straights for parents of children who IN FACT share the marriage contract IMPLICITLY with adults.  But you cannot make an argument that marriage and its terms do not impact children....because you just made that argument in your statement above!



There's nothing 'intrinsic' about marriage. Marriage is our invention. Its basis, its meaning, its application.....is whatever we say it is. Or whatever another culture says it is in their own jurisdiction.

As the changing definitions of marriage over time and geography demonstrate.

In our culture and our law.....the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. Simply destroying your argument.



> But there is an obstacle in the way of any argument that "gays are just as good for kids as straights when it comes to married parents".  And here it is:  PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY ...Added to the poll results at the top of the page where 80-90% of Americans believe a child having both a mother and father is "important" to that child....



The Prince's Trust never so much as mentions 'married parents'. Or mothers and fathers. Or gays, gay marriage, or same sex parenting. It doesn't measure the effects of any kind of parenting.

All of which you know. Yet laughably lie to misrepresent. 

*And as an aside....why lie? *I mean, you know that the study you're citing doesn't say anything you do. We know it doesn't. And you know we know. So who is your lie for?


----------



## Debra K

Tipsycatlover said:


> Nothing provides a child with a mother or a father for life.  There is no provision in American law for contractual imposition.





Tipsycatlover said:


> Nevertheless, the closest we come to the tortured obligation of a third party is the third party beneficiary contract. That it's not applicable, or even useful, only illustrates that there is nothing in our laws that remotely applies.
> 
> I personally feel that imposing same sex parents on a child is a form of child abuse.  There is no legal argument against same sex parenting.  Raising children into twisted, dysfunctional adults is not against the law.





Silhouette said:


> Oh but there absolutely is a legal argument.  Marriage is a contract between two adults because of children.  You'd have to prove that isn't historically true and contemporarily important.



No, Sil.  You are wrong.  There is no argument that would legally or morally justify discrimination.

Marriage is a "personal relationship" between two adults.  Their civil contract consists of mutual obligations of respect, fidelity, and support.  Children are not parties to the marriage contract nor third party beneficiaries of the marriage contract.  Skylar has pointed out to you numerous times that the things you imagine are not the law.  Although the marriage partners might have children, their contractual marital relationship does not exist "because of children". 

If a marriage partner breaches the civil contract, i.e., violates the obligations of respect, fidelity, and support, then the other party to the contract has legal grounds to terminate the contract (dissolve the marital relationship).  The aggrieved party may seek a divorce (dissolution of the marriage) based on "fault" such as mental cruelty (lack of respect), infidelity, or non-support.  The law has evolved to provide the parties with "no fault" grounds for divorce, e.g., irreconcilable differences.  The fact that the law does not force people to stay married "because of children" is strong evidence that your proposition is again a product of your imagination.  No one has the burden of disproving the fallacies that swirl around in your head.  We recognize that your proposition is borne from your personal animus and does nothing to protect children, but rather harms them as noted by our courts.

As a matter of law, children are not "third party beneficiaries" of the marriage contract.   The only legal relevance of the designation "third party beneficiary" is that the third party has the right to enforce the contract.   Those are the kind of contracts wherein the contract is made for the express purpose of benefitting the third person.  However, a child does not have standing to petition a court of law and enforce his married parents' obligations to respect each other, to remain faithful to each other, and to support each other.  A child cannot force his parents to remain married.  That does not mean that a child does not benefit from his parents' marriage when the married parents honor their contractual obligations to each other; he does.  But benefiting from a parents' good marriage is not he same thing as being a "third party beneficiary" of the marriage contract itself.  If the marriage contract is dissolved, a court will take into consideration the best interests of the child when determining custody and support issues in an action for divorce.  But an incidental beneficiary of a contract does not have standing to enforce a contract.

Many years ago, I read a child custody case where a court denied a mother custody because she was a lesbian who was living with her partner.  This deprivation was based on the father's alienation of the children's affection from their mother because she was a lesbian (known as "poisoning the well") and the court's fear that the children would suffer from "the slings and arrows of a disapproving society."  Much later, however, the court reversed itself finding those dreaded "slings and arrows" never materialized.  Furthermore "poisoning the well" is a factor that weighs against the party who is engaged in the alienation.

Sil, your entire argument has nothing to do with facts or the law nor even the best interests of the children.  It has everything to do with your personal disapproval of same-sex marriage partners.  You use poison to hurt rather than help children to thrive. You're the one who is harming them with your slings and arrows, and the rest of us say to you:  Mind your own business, you mean, mean, mean person.  Tend to your own life and your own children.


----------



## sealybobo

Syriusly said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. In your scenario the law should be the father participates financially even if he won't emotionally in the child's life.
> 
> A lot of single moms do fine with what they got. Especially if their spouse dies. But dont pretend its a positive thing for kids cause it aint.
> 
> And you make a good point not all fathers make good dads. Some kids are better off without their fathers. No ones going to eliminate all bad parents but we can certainly lower the numbers. Why are you pro one parent homes?
> 
> And no one wants to take your kid away. You had him now raise him. We're sick of you raising piss poor humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tired of listening to people blame their parents for what shitty people they are.
> 
> But since even POTENTIAL Children are more important that the happiness of adults, we need to put people in servitude to their children.  THis is the retarded argument that Silly-wet is using to try to hide his psychopathic homophobia (read latent homosexuality) behind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We really are lucky if we were born to two good parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After decades of watching families- I think a child is really lucky if they have one really good parent- they hit the jackpot if they have two really good parents.
Click to expand...

I hit the jackpot.


----------



## Syriusly

sealybobo said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. In your scenario the law should be the father participates financially even if he won't emotionally in the child's life.
> 
> A lot of single moms do fine with what they got. Especially if their spouse dies. But dont pretend its a positive thing for kids cause it aint.
> 
> And you make a good point not all fathers make good dads. Some kids are better off without their fathers. No ones going to eliminate all bad parents but we can certainly lower the numbers. Why are you pro one parent homes?
> 
> And no one wants to take your kid away. You had him now raise him. We're sick of you raising piss poor humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tired of listening to people blame their parents for what shitty people they are.
> 
> But since even POTENTIAL Children are more important that the happiness of adults, we need to put people in servitude to their children.  THis is the retarded argument that Silly-wet is using to try to hide his psychopathic homophobia (read latent homosexuality) behind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We really are lucky if we were born to two good parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After decades of watching families- I think a child is really lucky if they have one really good parent- they hit the jackpot if they have two really good parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hit the jackpot.
Click to expand...


So did I.  And frankly so has my daughter.


----------



## Skylar

Debra K said:


> As a matter of law, children are not "third party beneficiaries" of the marriage contract.   The only legal relevance of the designation "third party beneficiary" is that the third party has the right to enforce the contract.   Those are the kind of contracts wherein the contract is made for the express purpose of benefitting the third person.



I've searched the law looking for anyone, any court, any law that says that children are third party benefices of the 'marriage contract'. I've found absolutely nothing. Not a single state law, state ruling, federal law or federal ruling that has found this.

There are implied obligations between _parents and child,_ namely support. But none I could find regarding marriage and any implied or explicit obligation to children. Nor any recognition of children as third party beneficiaries to marriage.

I've even found courts that found that marriage was a three party contract between two people and the State.
But never two people and their children.

It appears Sil pulled this sideways out of her ass.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. In your scenario the law should be the father participates financially even if he won't emotionally in the child's life.
> 
> A lot of single moms do fine with what they got. Especially if their spouse dies. But dont pretend its a positive thing for kids cause it aint.
> 
> And you make a good point not all fathers make good dads. Some kids are better off without their fathers. No ones going to eliminate all bad parents but we can certainly lower the numbers. Why are you pro one parent homes?
> 
> And no one wants to take your kid away. You had him now raise him. We're sick of you raising piss poor humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tired of listening to people blame their parents for what shitty people they are.
> 
> But since even POTENTIAL Children are more important that the happiness of adults, we need to put people in servitude to their children.  THis is the retarded argument that Silly-wet is using to try to hide his psychopathic homophobia (read latent homosexuality) behind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We really are lucky if we were born to two good parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After decades of watching families- I think a child is really lucky if they have one really good parent- they hit the jackpot if they have two really good parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hit the jackpot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So did I.  And frankly so has my daughter.
Click to expand...


Going to Maker's Faire this year? Its random, but every so often I remember you live in the bay.


----------



## sealybobo

Skylar said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of law, children are not "third party beneficiaries" of the marriage contract.   The only legal relevance of the designation "third party beneficiary" is that the third party has the right to enforce the contract.   Those are the kind of contracts wherein the contract is made for the express purpose of benefitting the third person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've searched the law looking for anyone, any court, any law that says that children are third party benefices of the 'marriage contract'. I've found absolutely nothing. Not a single state law, state ruling, federal law or federal ruling that has found this.
> 
> There are implied obligations between _parents and child,_ namely support. But none I could find regarding marriage and any implied or explicit obligation to children. Nor any recognition of children as third party beneficiaries to marriage.
> 
> I've even found courts that found that marriage was a three party contract between two people and the State.
> But never two people and their children.
> 
> It appears Sil pulled this sideways out of her ass.
Click to expand...

Define marriage and you find that:

*Marriage *is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

How about when 2 parents die?  Who gets their money?  Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no?  Why not the parents?  They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.


----------



## Silhouette

sealybobo said:


> Define marriage and you find that:
> 
> *Marriage *is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.
> 
> How about when 2 parents die?  Who gets their money?  Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no?  Why not the parents?  They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.



Exactly.  And in divorce courts when it comes to custody, why not just have the parents flip a coin to see who gets the kids?  Or maybe just give the daughters to the mother and the sons to the father?  Why not?  Because the courts recognize the importance of BOTH to the implicit parties to marriage: the children in or from it.  Children do bear legal weight upon and from the marriage contract.  Ergo, they are parties to it.


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tired of listening to people blame their parents for what shitty people they are.
> 
> But since even POTENTIAL Children are more important that the happiness of adults, we need to put people in servitude to their children.  THis is the retarded argument that Silly-wet is using to try to hide his psychopathic homophobia (read latent homosexuality) behind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We really are lucky if we were born to two good parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After decades of watching families- I think a child is really lucky if they have one really good parent- they hit the jackpot if they have two really good parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hit the jackpot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So did I.  And frankly so has my daughter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Going to Maker's Faire this year? Its random, but every so often I remember you live in the bay.
Click to expand...


I have never actually gone.......does that make me a bad parent? LOL.

I have lots of friends who have gone and said it is great- just always end up missing it.


----------



## Skylar

sealybobo said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of law, children are not "third party beneficiaries" of the marriage contract.   The only legal relevance of the designation "third party beneficiary" is that the third party has the right to enforce the contract.   Those are the kind of contracts wherein the contract is made for the express purpose of benefitting the third person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've searched the law looking for anyone, any court, any law that says that children are third party benefices of the 'marriage contract'. I've found absolutely nothing. Not a single state law, state ruling, federal law or federal ruling that has found this.
> 
> There are implied obligations between _parents and child,_ namely support. But none I could find regarding marriage and any implied or explicit obligation to children. Nor any recognition of children as third party beneficiaries to marriage.
> 
> I've even found courts that found that marriage was a three party contract between two people and the State.
> But never two people and their children.
> 
> It appears Sil pulled this sideways out of her ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define marriage and you find that:
> 
> *Marriage *is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but that's a cultural anthropological perspective based largely on the concept of legitimate children and bastards.  Where a parent was only obligated to support children that arise from marriage. Not those that arise outside it.

That's been expunged from our laws for more than a century. With the obligation for the support of children following the parent child relationship. Not legitimacy.  The focus on 'legitimacy' died out about the same time as privity of contracts was dying. And it was the collapse of the privity of contracts that enabling even the concept of third party beneficiaries to exist in US law. So there was never a time children were recognized as third party beneficiaries of marriage in our law.

At least nothing I've been able to find. And certainly nothing in current law.



> How about when 2 parents die?  Who gets their money?  Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no?  Why not the parents?  They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.



It goes back to legitimacy issues and inheritance.  Neither of which are part of US law in the presence. And when they were, the privity of contracts kept marriage explicitly between the man and woman who had entered into it. Involving no one else. The privity of contracts explicitly rejected the idea of an implied third party beneficiary. And marital legitimacy arguments overlap with privity.

As for why kids received inheritence and not parents, dunno. I'd guess shorter lifespans when these laws were in effect probably influenced the cultural direction of inheritance: toward the younger generation. That and the assumptions of support for children under the law.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define marriage and you find that:
> 
> *Marriage *is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.
> 
> How about when 2 parents die?  Who gets their money?  Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no?  Why not the parents?  They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And in divorce courts when it comes to custody, why not just have the parents flip a coin to see who gets the kids? .
Click to expand...


Or why not eliminate no fault divorce when there are children? Or- allow the children to testify- or even decide- if the parents are allowed to divorce?

But that doesn't happen of course- because divorce courts don't decide whether a divorce will happen based upon children- but only after divorce is decided upon- then the courts require there be a plan to handle custody of the children- a separate issue from the divorce itself.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define marriage and you find that:
> 
> *Marriage *is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.
> 
> How about when 2 parents die?  Who gets their money?  Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no?  Why not the parents?  They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And in divorce courts when it comes to custody, why not just have the parents flip a coin to see who gets the kids?  Or maybe just give the daughters to the mother and the sons to the father?  Why not?  Because the courts recognize the importance of BOTH to the implicit parties to marriage: the children in or from it.  Children do bear legal weight upon and from the marriage contract.  Ergo, they are parties to it.
Click to expand...


More pseudo-legal nonsense. Custody isn't marriage. You equating the two demonstrates you have no idea what you're talking about.

Third party beneficiaries posses the power to sue to enforce the contract. Children have no power to sue to stop a divorce. If they were third party beneficiaries of the marriage, they'd have the power to sue to preserve the 'contract' that they were benefiting from.

*They have no such power...because they aren't third party beneficiaries. Nor does any law or court recognize them as such.*

Parents can divorce for pretty much any reason they wish. And children have no say in it.


----------



## Syriusly

sealybobo said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of law, children are not "third party beneficiaries" of the marriage contract.   The only legal relevance of the designation "third party beneficiary" is that the third party has the right to enforce the contract.   Those are the kind of contracts wherein the contract is made for the express purpose of benefitting the third person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've searched the law looking for anyone, any court, any law that says that children are third party benefices of the 'marriage contract'. I've found absolutely nothing. Not a single state law, state ruling, federal law or federal ruling that has found this.
> 
> There are implied obligations between _parents and child,_ namely support. But none I could find regarding marriage and any implied or explicit obligation to children. Nor any recognition of children as third party beneficiaries to marriage.
> 
> I've even found courts that found that marriage was a three party contract between two people and the State.
> But never two people and their children.
> 
> It appears Sil pulled this sideways out of her ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define marriage and you find that:
> 
> *Marriage *is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.
> 
> How about when 2 parents die?  Who gets their money?  Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no?  Why not the parents?  They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.
Click to expand...


That is 'a definition'-from Wikipedia- which takes it from an anthropology book-  but not 'the definition'

Websters:

* Full Definition of marriage *

_1_ _a_ _(1)_ :  the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law _(2)_ :  the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage _<same-sex marriage>_ _b_ :  the mutual relation of married persons :  wedlock _c_ :  the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage


_2_ :  an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; _especially_ :  the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities


_3_ :  an intimate or close union _<the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>_

Oxford English Dictionary

The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:


----------



## sealybobo

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define marriage and you find that:
> 
> *Marriage *is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.
> 
> How about when 2 parents die?  Who gets their money?  Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no?  Why not the parents?  They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And in divorce courts when it comes to custody, why not just have the parents flip a coin to see who gets the kids?  Or maybe just give the daughters to the mother and the sons to the father?  Why not?  Because the courts recognize the importance of BOTH to the implicit parties to marriage: the children in or from it.  Children do bear legal weight upon and from the marriage contract.  Ergo, they are parties to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More pseudo-legal nonsense. Custody isn't marriage. You equating the two demonstrates you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Third party beneficiaries posses the power to sue to enforce the contract. Children have no power to sue to stop a divorce. If they were third party beneficiaries of the marriage, they'd have the power to sue to preserve the 'contract' that they were benefiting from.
> 
> *They have no such power...because they aren't third party beneficiaries. Nor does any law or court recognize them as such.*
> 
> Parents can divorce for pretty much any reason they wish. And children have no say in it.
Click to expand...

But you don't get out of the contract you have with the kid.  You can break the contract you have with your wife but your contract with  your kid is binding till the kid is 18.  You CAN'T break that contract, although too many dead beats do.


----------



## sealybobo

Syriusly said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of law, children are not "third party beneficiaries" of the marriage contract.   The only legal relevance of the designation "third party beneficiary" is that the third party has the right to enforce the contract.   Those are the kind of contracts wherein the contract is made for the express purpose of benefitting the third person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've searched the law looking for anyone, any court, any law that says that children are third party benefices of the 'marriage contract'. I've found absolutely nothing. Not a single state law, state ruling, federal law or federal ruling that has found this.
> 
> There are implied obligations between _parents and child,_ namely support. But none I could find regarding marriage and any implied or explicit obligation to children. Nor any recognition of children as third party beneficiaries to marriage.
> 
> I've even found courts that found that marriage was a three party contract between two people and the State.
> But never two people and their children.
> 
> It appears Sil pulled this sideways out of her ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define marriage and you find that:
> 
> *Marriage *is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.
> 
> How about when 2 parents die?  Who gets their money?  Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no?  Why not the parents?  They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is 'a definition'-from Wikipedia- which takes it from an anthropology book-  but not 'the definition'
> 
> Websters:
> 
> * Full Definition of marriage *
> 
> _1_ _a_ _(1)_ :  the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law _(2)_ :  the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage _<same-sex marriage>_ _b_ :  the mutual relation of married persons :  wedlock _c_ :  the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
> 
> 
> _2_ :  an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; _especially_ :  the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
> 
> 
> _3_ :  an intimate or close union _<the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>_
> Oxford English Dictionary
> 
> The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:
Click to expand...

Exactly what I said.  LOL.

_(2)_ : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage _<same-sex marriage>_
_
_


----------



## Skylar

sealybobo said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define marriage and you find that:
> 
> *Marriage *is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.
> 
> How about when 2 parents die?  Who gets their money?  Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no?  Why not the parents?  They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And in divorce courts when it comes to custody, why not just have the parents flip a coin to see who gets the kids?  Or maybe just give the daughters to the mother and the sons to the father?  Why not?  Because the courts recognize the importance of BOTH to the implicit parties to marriage: the children in or from it.  Children do bear legal weight upon and from the marriage contract.  Ergo, they are parties to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More pseudo-legal nonsense. Custody isn't marriage. You equating the two demonstrates you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Third party beneficiaries posses the power to sue to enforce the contract. Children have no power to sue to stop a divorce. If they were third party beneficiaries of the marriage, they'd have the power to sue to preserve the 'contract' that they were benefiting from.
> 
> *They have no such power...because they aren't third party beneficiaries. Nor does any law or court recognize them as such.*
> 
> Parents can divorce for pretty much any reason they wish. And children have no say in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you don't get out of the contract you have with the kid.
Click to expand...


You don't have a 'contract' with a kid. You have an obligation for support. And that obligation has nothing to do with marriage. If you're married....the obligation exists. If you're divorced....the obligation exists. If you've never married.....the obligation exists.

The obligation parent-child. It has nothing to do with marriage.

In a distant past, the obligation followed parents only if the child was the product of a marriage. A 'legitimate' child. Parents had no obligation to support 'bastards'. But we haven't used any such law since......wow. The 1830s? And that was during the era of the privity of contracts. So there was no such thing as 'third party beneficiaries'.


----------



## Debra K

Silhouette said:


> . . . when Og and Thula built their fire and fried their goat meat over it for sustenance, their society bonded them together for the sake of not wanting orphaned kids or a single mother where then that was a death sentence to any children she would bear or an undue burden upon the clan.  So, marriage WAS invented to cure the ills of children not having a mother & father...LATER..marriage included some shady shit where kids were treated badly.



Do you really think your imaginary tale of prehistoric Og and Thula, cooking goat meat over fire, is "evidence" that supports your concept of marriage and renders the Court's findings in Obergefell a nullity?  Really?


----------



## Skylar

Debra K said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . when Og and Thula built their fire and fried their goat meat over it for sustenance, their society bonded them together for the sake of not wanting orphaned kids or a single mother where then that was a death sentence to any children she would bear or an undue burden upon the clan.  So, marriage WAS invented to cure the ills of children not having a mother & father...LATER..marriage included some shady shit where kids were treated badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think your imaginary tale of prehistoric Og and Thula, cooking goat meat over fire, is "evidence" that supports your concept of marriage and renders the Court's findings in Obergefell a nullity?  Really?
Click to expand...


She really does.


----------



## Debra K

sealybobo said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of law, children are not "third party beneficiaries" of the marriage contract.   The only legal relevance of the designation "third party beneficiary" is that the third party has the right to enforce the contract.   Those are the kind of contracts wherein the contract is made for the express purpose of benefitting the third person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've searched the law looking for anyone, any court, any law that says that children are third party benefices of the 'marriage contract'. I've found absolutely nothing. Not a single state law, state ruling, federal law or federal ruling that has found this.
> 
> There are implied obligations between _parents and child,_ namely support. But none I could find regarding marriage and any implied or explicit obligation to children. Nor any recognition of children as third party beneficiaries to marriage.
> 
> I've even found courts that found that marriage was a three party contract between two people and the State.
> But never two people and their children.
> 
> It appears Sil pulled this sideways out of her ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define marriage and you find that:
> 
> *Marriage *is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.
> 
> How about when 2 parents die?  Who gets their money?  Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no?  Why not the parents?  They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.
Click to expand...


Sealybobo:  Your state statutes define marriage, the obligations of spouses under the marriage contract, and the obligations of parents, etc.   Children and in-laws are not parties to the marriage contract. 

There are many areas of the law, however, that touch upon the subject of marriage and the parent-child relationship.   For instance, laws related to paternity, support, probate, intestate succession, etc., establish rules.   Some of those rules are default rules.  For example, if you don't leave a valid will, then your state statutory rules governing intestate succession govern.   And that should answer your question on "who gets the money."

I am not aware of any laws in my state that endow any rights or impose any obligations upon me with respect to my in-laws, e.g., my husband's parents or siblings.


----------



## Skylar

Debra K said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of law, children are not "third party beneficiaries" of the marriage contract.   The only legal relevance of the designation "third party beneficiary" is that the third party has the right to enforce the contract.   Those are the kind of contracts wherein the contract is made for the express purpose of benefitting the third person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've searched the law looking for anyone, any court, any law that says that children are third party benefices of the 'marriage contract'. I've found absolutely nothing. Not a single state law, state ruling, federal law or federal ruling that has found this.
> 
> There are implied obligations between _parents and child,_ namely support. But none I could find regarding marriage and any implied or explicit obligation to children. Nor any recognition of children as third party beneficiaries to marriage.
> 
> I've even found courts that found that marriage was a three party contract between two people and the State.
> But never two people and their children.
> 
> It appears Sil pulled this sideways out of her ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define marriage and you find that:
> 
> *Marriage *is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.
> 
> How about when 2 parents die?  Who gets their money?  Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no?  Why not the parents?  They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sealybobo:  Your state statutes define marriage, the obligations of spouses under the marriage contract, and the obligations of parents, etc.   Children and in-laws are not parties to the marriage contract.
> 
> There are many areas of the law, however, that touch upon the subject of marriage and the parent-child relationship.   For instance, laws related to paternity, support, probate, intestate succession, etc., establish rules.   Some of those rules are default rules.  For example, if you don't leave a valid will, then your state statutory rules governing intestate succession govern.   And that should answer your question on "who gets the money."
> 
> I am not aware of any laws in my state that endow any rights or impose any obligations upon me with respect to my in-laws, e.g., my husband's parents or siblings.
Click to expand...


What Seal offered was a description from a  general Cultural Anthropology text. Not a legal description, or even specifically related to our culture.


----------



## Debra K

Silhouette said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define marriage and you find that:
> 
> *Marriage *is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.
> 
> How about when 2 parents die?  Who gets their money?  Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no?  Why not the parents?  They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And in divorce courts when it comes to custody, why not just have the parents flip a coin to see who gets the kids?  Or maybe just give the daughters to the mother and the sons to the father?  Why not?  Because the courts recognize the importance of BOTH to the implicit parties to marriage: the children in or from it.  Children do bear legal weight upon and from the marriage contract.  Ergo, they are parties to it.
Click to expand...


You're so silly.  In a custody dispute, a court considers and weighs the best interests of the child.  Generally, there are several statutory factors for determining which parent (regardless of gender) will better serve the best interests.  Whether the parties to the marriage are of the opposite sex or the same sex, the factors don't change.  Although a court may decide the issue of custody when the parents cannot agree, the children are not parties to their parents' marriage contract and they are not parties to their parents' divorce action, (which involves dissolution of the personal relationship between the parties and termination of their marriage contract).  The parents are not divorcing their children.


----------



## sealybobo

Debra K said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define marriage and you find that:
> 
> *Marriage *is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.
> 
> How about when 2 parents die?  Who gets their money?  Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no?  Why not the parents?  They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And in divorce courts when it comes to custody, why not just have the parents flip a coin to see who gets the kids?  Or maybe just give the daughters to the mother and the sons to the father?  Why not?  Because the courts recognize the importance of BOTH to the implicit parties to marriage: the children in or from it.  Children do bear legal weight upon and from the marriage contract.  Ergo, they are parties to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so silly.  In a custody dispute, a court considers and weighs the best interests of the child.  Generally, there are several statutory factors for determining which parent (regardless of gender) will better serve the best interests.  Whether the parties to the marriage are of the opposite sex or the same sex, the factors don't change.  Although a court may decide the issue of custody when the parents cannot agree, the children are not parties to their parents' marriage contract and they are not parties to their parents' divorce action, (which involves dissolution of the personal relationship between the parties and termination of their marriage contract).  The parents are not divorcing their children.
Click to expand...

Although you can divorce your parents and visa versa.


----------



## WorldWatcher

sealybobo said:


> Although you can divorce your parents and visa versa.




Ummmm...

When a husband and wife get divorced, they are no longer husband and wife.

I've not heard of a child divorcing their parents.  There is a process where a minor can go to court and become an "emancipated minor".  An emancipated minor is no longer under the care and control of the parents and, depending on the court, may or may not receive living expenses from the parents.

That is not the same as a divorce since the parents are still the parents of an emancipated minor.


>>>>


----------



## Debra K

sealybobo said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define marriage and you find that:
> 
> *Marriage *is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.
> 
> How about when 2 parents die?  Who gets their money?  Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no?  Why not the parents?  They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And in divorce courts when it comes to custody, why not just have the parents flip a coin to see who gets the kids?  Or maybe just give the daughters to the mother and the sons to the father?  Why not?  Because the courts recognize the importance of BOTH to the implicit parties to marriage: the children in or from it.  Children do bear legal weight upon and from the marriage contract.  Ergo, they are parties to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so silly.  In a custody dispute, a court considers and weighs the best interests of the child.  Generally, there are several statutory factors for determining which parent (regardless of gender) will better serve the best interests.  Whether the parties to the marriage are of the opposite sex or the same sex, the factors don't change.  Although a court may decide the issue of custody when the parents cannot agree, the children are not parties to their parents' marriage contract and they are not parties to their parents' divorce action, (which involves dissolution of the personal relationship between the parties and termination of their marriage contract).  The parents are not divorcing their children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Although you can divorce your parents and visa versa.
Click to expand...


I suppose a child may seek emancipation (from parental control), or the state may seek to terminate parental rights,  or a parent may seek to relinquish parental rights, but those things aren't "divorce".  Are you referring to any specific case?


----------



## Silhouette

Debra K said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although you can divorce your parents and visa versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose a child may seek emancipation (from parental control), or the state may seek to terminate parental rights,  or a parent may seek to relinquish parental rights, but those things aren't "divorce".  Are you referring to any specific case?
Click to expand...


The point being that children are legally bound in marriage and must seek formal proceedings to escape or alter or whatever.  The courts consider all people in the married home part of the contract.  And a contract that has onerous terms to children cannot exist.  Therefore depriving a child via contract of either a mother or father for life via contract cannot exist. Therefore gay marriage cannot exist legally.


----------



## Katzndogz

Mother and father are no longer legal terms.  It's parent and can be same sex parents.


----------



## EverCurious

The court never once gave two shits in either my ex-husband and I's divorce nor either of our subsequent remarriages regarding the kids (we have two) because we put on our divorce paperwork that we'd be able to work out everything on our own.  And we have, for just about 20 years now, not had a single custody related fight.  The /law/ doesn't have an "interest" in children until a custody dispute is brought to them - and that is exactly how it should be.  IF the law had an "automatic interest" then they would insert themselves forcibly and /dictate/ to divorcing parents who was going to have custody and so forth.  The fact that they do not get involved, unless they are specifically asked to be involved, pretty much destroys any concept of children being third-party to marriage or divorce.

Frankly, I would be pretty pissed if I was informed that because my ex and I had kids we couldn't get divorced, or get remarried, or stay single as we wished...


----------



## Silhouette

EverCurious said:


> The court never once gave two shits in either my ex-husband and I's divorce nor either of our subsequent remarriages regarding the kids (we have two) because we put on our divorce paperwork that we'd be able to work out everything on our own.  And we have, for just about 20 years now, not had a single custody related fight.  The /law/ doesn't have an "interest" in children until a custody dispute is brought to them - and that is exactly how it should be.  IF the law had an "automatic interest" then they would insert themselves forcibly and /dictate/ to divorcing parents who was going to have custody and so forth.  The fact that they do not get involved, unless they are specifically asked to be involved, *pretty much destroys any concept of children being third-party to marriage or divorce*.



Nope, it doesn't.  And if the children disagreed with the arrangement, the court would have appointed them a guardian ad litem as it is required to do by law in such contested situations and come up with a different solution.  Children are part of the marriage contract.  A fact that is quite obviously making your cult a little nervous because I suspect one of your lawyers has brushed up on the Infant Doctrine and "necessities" laws regarding contracts.  So spin spin spin away.  But that's not going to save you when the rubber meets the road in arguments..

Obergefell changed the terms of a contract children share and did so without their having representation.  It did so even though it had knowledge of the amicus briefs in the link in my signature.  Obergefell, therefore, was a mistrial.  Onerous contractual terms can't exist in law to the detriment of children.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although you can divorce your parents and visa versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose a child may seek emancipation (from parental control), or the state may seek to terminate parental rights,  or a parent may seek to relinquish parental rights, but those things aren't "divorce".  Are you referring to any specific case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point being that children are legally bound in marriage and must seek formal proceedings to escape or alter or whatever.  The courts consider all people in the married home part of the contract..
Click to expand...


No- stop listening to the voices in your head.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> The court never once gave two shits in either my ex-husband and I's divorce nor either of our subsequent remarriages regarding the kids (we have two) because we put on our divorce paperwork that we'd be able to work out everything on our own.  And we have, for just about 20 years now, not had a single custody related fight.  The /law/ doesn't have an "interest" in children until a custody dispute is brought to them - and that is exactly how it should be.  IF the law had an "automatic interest" then they would insert themselves forcibly and /dictate/ to divorcing parents who was going to have custody and so forth.  The fact that they do not get involved, unless they are specifically asked to be involved, *pretty much destroys any concept of children being third-party to marriage or divorce*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .  Children are part of the marriage contract. .
Click to expand...


Nope- which is why children's opinions regarding whether a divorce should happen is disregarded by the courts.

The courts only ask the children's opinion regarding custody arrangements.

Which is why even when a mom remarries- her children don't automatically become the children of her new husband- the children are not even considered part of that marriage.


----------



## EverCurious

mmhmm And why would I be nervous?  My kids are damn near out of the house and I'm in a heterosexual marriage that your ridiculous bullshit can't ever touch.

My kids were never asked by anyone if my ex and I could be divorced, nor if either of us could get remarried.  There was no ad litem because it was never even questioned by any court.  In fact, having gone through a custody fight with my current husband ex-gf and son, the court did /not/ automatically appoint an ad litem, my husband had to specifically request one and then prove to the judge why it was necessary.

RE: Infancy doctrine, as far as I know we don't mix civil and business law like you want to do here.   Can you give me any example where infancy doctrine has been used regarding any marriage?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although you can divorce your parents and visa versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose a child may seek emancipation (from parental control), or the state may seek to terminate parental rights,  or a parent may seek to relinquish parental rights, but those things aren't "divorce".  Are you referring to any specific case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point being that children are legally bound in marriage and must seek formal proceedings to escape or alter or whatever.
Click to expand...


Except that they aren't. If the parents are never married, a child would have to go through the exact same steps if they want emancipation.



> The courts consider all people in the married home part of the contract.



Except that they don't. No court recognizes a child as 'part of the contract'. They aren't parties, they aren't third party beneficiaries, they aren't anything.

You made all that up.




> And a contract that has onerous terms to children cannot exist.  Therefore depriving a child via contract of either a mother or father for life via contract cannot exist. Therefore gay marriage cannot exist legally.



Except that the Supreme Court has never found that same sex marriage creates 'onerous terms' for a child. But quite the opposite: that same sex marriage is beneficial to children.

And of course, none of your babble about children being 'part of the contract' is actually true. You just made that up.

And of course, the Supreme Court has already found that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them:



			
				Obergefell v. Hodges said:
			
		

> "This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."



Apparently the 'point' of your entire post was to demonstrate that you're just making this up as you go along.


----------



## Skylar

EverCurious said:


> mmhmm And why would I be nervous?  My kids are damn near out of the house and I'm in a heterosexual marriage that your ridiculous bullshit can't ever touch.
> 
> My kids were never asked by anyone if my ex and I could be divorced, nor if either of us could get remarried.  There was no ad litem because it was never even questioned by any court.  In fact, having gone through a custody fight with my current husband ex-gf and son, the court did /not/ automatically appoint an ad litem, my husband had to specifically request one and then prove to the judge why it was necessary.
> 
> RE: Infancy doctrine, as far as I know we don't mix civil and business law like you want to do here.   Can you give me any example where infancy doctrine has been used regarding any marriage?



Yeah it was kind of embarrassing to watch Sil quote Entertainment Law as marriage law. 

And no, she can't. She can't even show us a law or court ruling that recognizes that a marriage of parents creates a minor contract for children. 

She's literally making this up as she goes along.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> The court never once gave two shits in either my ex-husband and I's divorce nor either of our subsequent remarriages regarding the kids (we have two) because we put on our divorce paperwork that we'd be able to work out everything on our own.  And we have, for just about 20 years now, not had a single custody related fight.  The /law/ doesn't have an "interest" in children until a custody dispute is brought to them - and that is exactly how it should be.  IF the law had an "automatic interest" then they would insert themselves forcibly and /dictate/ to divorcing parents who was going to have custody and so forth.  The fact that they do not get involved, unless they are specifically asked to be involved, *pretty much destroys any concept of children being third-party to marriage or divorce*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it doesn't.  And if the children disagreed with the arrangement, the court would have appointed them a guardian ad litem as it is required to do by law in such contested situations and come up with a different solution.
Click to expand...


No, that's just more pseud-legal gibberish. You wanted to use the words 'guardian ad litem' is all. Children 'disagreeing' isn't why or when they are assigned. But if the judge feels he or she needs more information.

The judge decides if they are necessary. Not a child.



> Children are part of the marriage contract.



Says you. You've never once been able to show us one law or court ruling that recognizes children as either parties or their party beneficiaries of marriage. _You merely say it is so. Citing yourself._

And you have no idea what you're talking about.



> A fact that is quite obviously making your cult a little nervous because I suspect one of your lawyers has brushed up on the Infant Doctrine and "necessities" laws regarding contracts.  So spin spin spin away.  But that's not going to save you when the rubber meets the road in arguments..



The Infancy Doctrine doesn't say any of what you did. Its part of Entertainment and Business law for explicit contracts....like for child actors or minors who want to obtain a mortgage. It has nothing to do with marriage. Nor can you show us a single example where it has ever been applied to marriage.

You're just making this shit up as you go along. And none of it has the slightest relevance to any law, any marriage or any court ruling.



> Obergefell changed the terms of a contract children share and did so without their having representation.



No Supreme Court hearing has *ever* had a 'representative' for 'all children'. Nor is there any such requirement.

You're just this shit up as you go along.



> It did so even though it had knowledge of the amicus briefs in the link in my signature.  Obergefell, therefore, was a mistrial.  Onerous contractual terms can't exist in law to the detriment of children.



Obergefell wasn't even a trial. It was a hearing followed by a ruling. Making your 'mistrial' babble mere pseudo-legal gibberish.

None of the requirements you insisted that Obergefell failed to meet...actually exist. Nor does any court or law recognize that a marriage of parents is a minor contract for their children. Or that children are third party beneficiaries of marriage. You made all that up.

You genuinely don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.


----------



## Silhouette

Keep hoping Skylar.  Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws, the Infant Doctrine and necessities are sharpening their quills.  Children share the marriage contract.  That's ever so easy to demonstrate with logic.  So, the next step is to ask "were children's unique enjoyments of the marriage contract represented when the contract revision hearing (Obergefell) went down?  The answer is "no".  You would counter "the Justices discussed how gay marriage was good for children".  But they did so as the children's attorneys?  Because as you know, judges cannot preside over a case and simultaneously act as an attorney for one of the parties to the case that were conveniently not invited to have representation there...


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> Children share the marriage contract.


Name even a single child who ever stopped either a divorce or a marriage?  Oh right, there aren't any.  You lose, little mental case...


----------



## EverCurious

Good lord can you imagine what would happen in this country if kids got to dictate what their parents were allowed to do or not?   I can just see all the murders from parents who want a divorce but the kid(s) won't let them lol


----------



## sealybobo

EverCurious said:


> Good lord can you imagine what would happen in this country if kids got to dictate what their parents were allowed to do or not?   I can just see all the murders from parents who want a divorce but the kid(s) won't let them lol


Whoever wants the divorce should leave. I know not in every case but I don't like it mom can throw dad out when he wants to live with his child 7 days a week. It's not natural to give dad weekends. Makes me want to say fuck you ma buy a duplex and live two lives but a kid should have mom and dad at least on the same block


----------



## mdk

EverCurious said:


> Good lord can you imagine what would happen in this country if kids got to dictate what their parents were allowed to do or not?   I can just see all the murders from parents who want a divorce but the kid(s) won't let them lol



Just like every one Sil's standards, it would only apply to queers. Straight people can still do whatever they wish without the consent of the child.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws, the Infant Doctrine and necessities are sharpening their quills.



Nope. You're citing yourself, not any lawyer. Which is why when we ask you to show us *a single example* of the Infancy Doctrine of Entertainment and Business law applied to marriage........you quietly avoid the question.

For crying out loud, last night you were citing UK law as overturning Obergefell. There's no such thing as Contract Imposition in US law. 

Its just you citing yourself. And your record of predicting legal outcomes is one of perfect failure. You've literally never been right.



> Children share the marriage contract.



Nope. Not even close.. No law nor court recognizes that children are parties to marriage of their parents or third party beneficiaries. You made all that up. And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

See how that works?


> That's ever so easy to demonstrate with logic.  So, the next step is to ask "were children's unique enjoyments of the marriage contract represented when the contract revision hearing (Obergefell) went down?  The answer is "no".



Nope. Children aren't parties to the marriage of their parents. Or third party beneficiaries. And the Supreme Court already explicitly contradicted you, finding that same sex marriage benefits children. With the Supreme Court also finding that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them.

*Your argument literally shatters *four* times. *Which might explain why same sex marriage is legal in 50 of 50 States. And no court recognizes any of your pseudo-legal gibberish.



> You would counter "the Justices discussed how gay marriage was good for children".  But they did so as the children's attorneys?  Because as you know, judges cannot preside over a case and simultaneously act as an attorney for one of the parties to the case that were conveniently not invited to have representation there...



Nope. None of that is the law either. Nor was any child a party in the Obergefell case. Nor is there any requirement that the Supreme Court have a 'representative' for 'all children' at a hearing.

You made that up.* In fact, the Supreme Court has *never* had a 'representative' for 'all children' at any hearing in the history of the court. *

*Ever. *

You simply have no idea what you're talking about. And your pseudo-legal gibberish remains gloriously irrelevant to any case, any court, any marriage, any law.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Keep hoping Skylar.  Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws, the Infant Doctrine and necessities are sharpening their quills.  Children share the marriage contract.  That's ever so easy to demonstrate with logic.  So, the next step is to ask "were children's unique enjoyments of the marriage contract represented when the contract revision hearing (Obergefell) went down?  The answer is "no".  You would counter "the Justices discussed how gay marriage was good for children".  But they did so as the children's attorneys?  Because as you know, judges cannot preside over a case and simultaneously act as an attorney for one of the parties to the case that were conveniently not invited to have representation there...



Show me any state that recognizes that children share a marriage contract. You can't b/c these states only exist in your addled one-track mind.


----------



## Skylar

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep hoping Skylar.  Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws, the Infant Doctrine and necessities are sharpening their quills.  Children share the marriage contract.  That's ever so easy to demonstrate with logic.  So, the next step is to ask "were children's unique enjoyments of the marriage contract represented when the contract revision hearing (Obergefell) went down?  The answer is "no".  You would counter "the Justices discussed how gay marriage was good for children".  But they did so as the children's attorneys?  Because as you know, judges cannot preside over a case and simultaneously act as an attorney for one of the parties to the case that were conveniently not invited to have representation there...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me any state that recognizes that children share a marriage contract. You can't b/c these states only exist in your addled one-track mind.
Click to expand...


Don't bother. Sil can never back up her pseudo-legal gibberish. She'll just restate it. 

She knows she's completely full of shit. We know she's full of shit. And she knows we know she's full of shit.

These entire threads (all 53 of them now) are merely thumb sucking excercises in self soothing for Sil. Where she repeated the same comforting nonsensical gibberish to herself, hoping it will sooth the dissonance between what she predicted reality would be.....and what it actually is. 

Sil is literally her own target audience for this nonsense.


----------



## mdk

Skylar said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep hoping Skylar.  Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws, the Infant Doctrine and necessities are sharpening their quills.  Children share the marriage contract.  That's ever so easy to demonstrate with logic.  So, the next step is to ask "were children's unique enjoyments of the marriage contract represented when the contract revision hearing (Obergefell) went down?  The answer is "no".  You would counter "the Justices discussed how gay marriage was good for children".  But they did so as the children's attorneys?  Because as you know, judges cannot preside over a case and simultaneously act as an attorney for one of the parties to the case that were conveniently not invited to have representation there...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me any state that recognizes that children share a marriage contract. You can't b/c these states only exist in your addled one-track mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't bother. Sil can never back up her pseudo-legal gibberish. She'll just restate it.
> 
> She knows she's completely full of shit. We know she's full of shit. And she knows we know she's full of shit.
> 
> These entire threads (all 53 of them now) are merely thumb sucking excercises in self soothing for Sil. Where she repeated the same comforting nonsensical gibberish to herself, hoping it will sooth the dissonance between what she predicted reality would be.....and what it actually is.
> 
> Sil is literally her own target audience for this nonsense.
Click to expand...

Hardly. This poll totally means 90% of Americans, from the farm to the factories, are opposed to gay marriage. lol


----------



## Skylar

mdk said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep hoping Skylar.  Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws, the Infant Doctrine and necessities are sharpening their quills.  Children share the marriage contract.  That's ever so easy to demonstrate with logic.  So, the next step is to ask "were children's unique enjoyments of the marriage contract represented when the contract revision hearing (Obergefell) went down?  The answer is "no".  You would counter "the Justices discussed how gay marriage was good for children".  But they did so as the children's attorneys?  Because as you know, judges cannot preside over a case and simultaneously act as an attorney for one of the parties to the case that were conveniently not invited to have representation there...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me any state that recognizes that children share a marriage contract. You can't b/c these states only exist in your addled one-track mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't bother. Sil can never back up her pseudo-legal gibberish. She'll just restate it.
> 
> She knows she's completely full of shit. We know she's full of shit. And she knows we know she's full of shit.
> 
> These entire threads (all 53 of them now) are merely thumb sucking excercises in self soothing for Sil. Where she repeated the same comforting nonsensical gibberish to herself, hoping it will sooth the dissonance between what she predicted reality would be.....and what it actually is.
> 
> Sil is literally her own target audience for this nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hardly. This poll totally means 90% of Americans, from the farm to the factories, are opposed to gay marriage. lol
Click to expand...


But....but 56 times. And the Prince's Trust!


----------



## Katzndogz

sealybobo said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good lord can you imagine what would happen in this country if kids got to dictate what their parents were allowed to do or not?   I can just see all the murders from parents who want a divorce but the kid(s) won't let them lol
> 
> 
> 
> Whoever wants the divorce should leave. I know not in every case but I don't like it mom can throw dad out when he wants to live with his child 7 days a week. It's not natural to give dad weekends. Makes me want to say fuck you ma buy a duplex and live two lives but a kid should have mom and dad at least on the same block
Click to expand...


When I got my divorce I moved two blocks away and my son had a key. 

If the parents can afford it, some parenting plans use what's called nesting custody.  The parents keep the family home and the child lives there while the parents alternate weeks staying at the home.  The have a roommate, stay with relatives or just have a cheapo room for the time they aren't in the custodial residence.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Hey Sil, the sperm wants a divorce but the ovum say no.  Now what?


----------



## mdk

Skylar said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep hoping Skylar.  Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws, the Infant Doctrine and necessities are sharpening their quills.  Children share the marriage contract.  That's ever so easy to demonstrate with logic.  So, the next step is to ask "were children's unique enjoyments of the marriage contract represented when the contract revision hearing (Obergefell) went down?  The answer is "no".  You would counter "the Justices discussed how gay marriage was good for children".  But they did so as the children's attorneys?  Because as you know, judges cannot preside over a case and simultaneously act as an attorney for one of the parties to the case that were conveniently not invited to have representation there...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me any state that recognizes that children share a marriage contract. You can't b/c these states only exist in your addled one-track mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't bother. Sil can never back up her pseudo-legal gibberish. She'll just restate it.
> 
> She knows she's completely full of shit. We know she's full of shit. And she knows we know she's full of shit.
> 
> These entire threads (all 53 of them now) are merely thumb sucking excercises in self soothing for Sil. Where she repeated the same comforting nonsensical gibberish to herself, hoping it will sooth the dissonance between what she predicted reality would be.....and what it actually is.
> 
> Sil is literally her own target audience for this nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hardly. This poll totally means 90% of Americans, from the farm to the factories, are opposed to gay marriage. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But....but 56 times. And the Prince's Trust!
Click to expand...


This is a form speech suppression!


----------



## Katzndogz

Silhouette said:


> Keep hoping Skylar.  Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws, the Infant Doctrine and necessities are sharpening their quills.  Children share the marriage contract.  That's ever so easy to demonstrate with logic.  So, the next step is to ask "were children's unique enjoyments of the marriage contract represented when the contract revision hearing (Obergefell) went down?  The answer is "no".  You would counter "the Justices discussed how gay marriage was good for children".  But they did so as the children's attorneys?  Because as you know, judges cannot preside over a case and simultaneously act as an attorney for one of the parties to the case that were conveniently not invited to have representation there...



You are so wrong, it's hard to know where to start telling you how wrong you are.  The Infant Doctrine has nothing to do with marriage.  It only allows a child to avoid a contract that the child entered into.   No lawyers are sharpening quills in expectation of an explosion in some new children's rights law.  I have extensive experience in family law.  Right now I am a court appointed advocate for a six year old girl whose parents are in a contentious divorce.  If anyone was going to agree with you, it would be me IF there was any merit to what you say.  You are really making it up as you go along.


----------



## EverCurious

Tipsycatlover said:


> When I got my divorce I moved two blocks away and my son had a key.
> 
> If the parents can afford it, some parenting plans use what's called nesting custody.  The parents keep the family home and the child lives there while the parents alternate weeks staying at the home.  The have a roommate, stay with relatives or just have a cheapo room for the time they aren't in the custodial residence.



My ex and I did similar, we stayed together for four years after deciding we'd gotten married way too young trying to have one more kid because we trusted each other for that.  Originally we were both living in our condo, but he later got a GF and she wasn't keen on him living with his ex so he got an apartment and ultimately sold the condo to my [current] husband.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Keep hoping Skylar.  Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws, the Infant Doctrine and necessities are sharpening their quills.  Children share the marriage contract.  That's ever so easy to demonstrate with logic.  So, the next step is to ask "were children's unique enjoyments of the marriage contract represented when the contract revision hearing (Obergefell) went down?  The answer is "no".  You would counter "the Justices discussed how gay marriage was good for children".  But they did so as the children's attorneys?  Because as you know, judges cannot preside over a case and simultaneously act as an attorney for one of the parties to the case that were conveniently not invited to have representation there...





Tipsycatlover said:


> * You are so wrong, it's hard to know where to start telling you how wrong you are*.  The Infant Doctrine has nothing to do with marriage.  It only allows a child to avoid a contract that the child entered into.   No lawyers are sharpening quills in expectation of an explosion in some new children's rights law.  I have extensive experience in family law.  Right now I am a court appointed advocate for a six year old girl whose parents are in a contentious divorce.  If anyone was going to agree with you, it would be me IF there was any merit to what you say.  You are really making it up as you go along.



 ...classic "I don't have a solid rebuttal" comeback, while making yourself appear superior.  Did you learn that in the 3rd grade?

Contract law applies to ALL contracts when it comes to infants and necessities.  And contracts aren't just written, they are also implied.  Such is the case in the contract adults implicitly share with children called "marriage".  Marriage was invented for them in fact over a thousand years ago, to provide them with both a mother and father to cure the maladies children found themselves in without one or the other, or both.  Marriage was a structure built between a man and woman to provide shelter and necessities, most importantly, guidance, for children that would arrive naturally, or by adoption.

I can see you're against "an explosion in some new children's rights law".  You, an advocate for the downtrodden poo-pooing the most downtrodden and suppressed demographic, the most powerless to affect their fate: children.  Hypocrite.

Since you are an appointed advocate for a child in a divorce, you must know that the court appointed you because it feels and understands that children have unique rights to the marriage contract separate from either of the adults.  Otherwise the court would just look at the child and say "tough luck kid, you'll do whatever the court tells you to do" (Like Obergefell did to all children into the future affected).

How about that folks?  Here's the new leftest ideal: a court appointed child advocate against a "new explosion of children's rights laws"...  Welcome to your Brave New World..


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Contract law applies to ALL contracts when it comes to infants and necessities. And contracts aren't just written, they are also implied. Such is the case in the contract adults implicitly share with children called "marriage". Marriage was invented for them in fact over a thousand years ago, to provide them with both a mother and father to cure the maladies children found themselves in without one or the other, or both. Marriage was a structure built between a man and woman to provide shelter and necessities, most importantly, guidance, for children that would arrive naturally, or by adoption.



Please give me a list of states that recognize children being an implicit part of a marriage contract. I'll wait...

Remember, citing your imagination doesn't count.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Please give me a list of states that recognize children being an implicit part of a marriage contract. I'll wait...
> 
> Remember, citing your imagination doesn't count.


That's like me asking you to give me a list of states twenty years ago that recognize gays marrying....  You know civil rights movements take time.  What, are you now going to start advocating that children aren't the most powerless demographic with unique rights of their own in marriage?


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please give me a list of states that recognize children being an implicit part of a marriage contract. I'll wait...
> 
> Remember, citing your imagination doesn't count.
> 
> 
> 
> That's like me asking you to give me a list of states twenty years ago that recognize gays marrying....  You know civil rights movements take time.
Click to expand...


You mean your claims that children have been an implicit part of a marriage contract in this nation are utter bullshit!? Shocking.


----------



## Katzndogz

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep hoping Skylar.  Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws, the Infant Doctrine and necessities are sharpening their quills.  Children share the marriage contract.  That's ever so easy to demonstrate with logic.  So, the next step is to ask "were children's unique enjoyments of the marriage contract represented when the contract revision hearing (Obergefell) went down?  The answer is "no".  You would counter "the Justices discussed how gay marriage was good for children".  But they did so as the children's attorneys?  Because as you know, judges cannot preside over a case and simultaneously act as an attorney for one of the parties to the case that were conveniently not invited to have representation there...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> * You are so wrong, it's hard to know where to start telling you how wrong you are*.  The Infant Doctrine has nothing to do with marriage.  It only allows a child to avoid a contract that the child entered into.   No lawyers are sharpening quills in expectation of an explosion in some new children's rights law.  I have extensive experience in family law.  Right now I am a court appointed advocate for a six year old girl whose parents are in a contentious divorce.  If anyone was going to agree with you, it would be me IF there was any merit to what you say.  You are really making it up as you go along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...classic "I don't have a solid rebuttal" comeback, while making yourself appear superior.  Did you learn that in the 3rd grade?
> 
> Contract law applies to ALL contracts when it comes to infants and necessities.  And contracts aren't just written, they are also implied.  Such is the case in the contract adults implicitly share with children called "marriage".  Marriage was invented for them in fact over a thousand years ago, to provide them with both a mother and father to cure the maladies children found themselves in without one or the other, or both.  Marriage was a structure built between a man and woman to provide shelter and necessities, most importantly, guidance, for children that would arrive naturally, or by adoption.
> 
> I can see you're against "an explosion in some new children's rights law".  You, an advocate for the downtrodden poo-pooing the most downtrodden and suppressed demographic, the most powerless to affect their fate: children.  Hypocrite.
> 
> Since you are an appointed advocate for a child in a divorce, you must know that the court appointed you because it feels and understands that children have unique rights to the marriage contract separate from either of the adults.  Otherwise the court would just look at the child and say "tough luck kid, you'll do whatever the court tells you to do" (Like Obergefell did to all children into the future affected).
> 
> How about that folks?  Here's the new leftest ideal: a court appointed child advocate against a "new explosion of children's rights laws"...  Welcome to your Brave New World..
Click to expand...

I'm an advocate BECAUSE a child has no rights arising out of the marriage but certain defined rights separate from the marriage.   None of those rights are to a mother and a father.    Children have never had a right to a mother or a father.  1,000 years ago and earlier, right up to the 20th century  childhood was a very short period of time.  The children had no rights in the marriage or out of the marriage.  Children worked as soon as they could grasp the concept.  Children were born to add to the family 's laborers.  Six or seven was normally as long as a childhood lasted,


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep hoping Skylar.  Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws, the Infant Doctrine and necessities are sharpening their quills.  Children share the marriage contract.  That's ever so easy to demonstrate with logic.  So, the next step is to ask "were children's unique enjoyments of the marriage contract represented when the contract revision hearing (Obergefell) went down?  The answer is "no".  You would counter "the Justices discussed how gay marriage was good for children".  But they did so as the children's attorneys?  Because as you know, judges cannot preside over a case and simultaneously act as an attorney for one of the parties to the case that were conveniently not invited to have representation there...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> * You are so wrong, it's hard to know where to start telling you how wrong you are*.  The Infant Doctrine has nothing to do with marriage.  It only allows a child to avoid a contract that the child entered into.   No lawyers are sharpening quills in expectation of an explosion in some new children's rights law.  I have extensive experience in family law.  Right now I am a court appointed advocate for a six year old girl whose parents are in a contentious divorce.  If anyone was going to agree with you, it would be me IF there was any merit to what you say.  You are really making it up as you go along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...classic "I don't have a solid rebuttal" comeback, while making yourself appear superior.  Did you learn that in the 3rd grade?
> 
> Contract law applies to ALL contracts when it comes to infants and necessities.  And contracts aren't just written, they are also implied.  Such is the case in the contract adults implicitly share with children called "marriage".
Click to expand...


Oh, the layers of pseudo-legal gibberish. First, the Infancy Doctrine is about explicit contracts. Not implied. There are no such thing as 'implied' contracts for children. Second, the Infancy Doctrine has nothing to do with marriage. Its about Entertainment and Business law. Worse for your argument, no law nor court recognizes that children are parties to the marriage of their parents. Nor that they are third party beneficiaries. Nor that the marriage of parents create a minor contract for children.

And here's the kicker:

*You've never been able to find any legal source, any law, any court ruling that finds that children are parties of the marriage of their parents.* Nor even one example of the Infancy Doctrine applied to marriage. Its always you citing yourself.

And you have no idea how contract law works.



> Marriage was invented for them in fact over a thousand years ago, to provide them with both a mother and father to cure the maladies children found themselves in without one or the other, or both.  Marriage was a structure built between a man and woman to provide shelter and necessities, most importantly, guidance, for children that would arrive naturally, or by adoption.



Says you, citing your imagination. And your imagination has no relevance to any law, court ruling, or marriage.



> How about that folks?  Here's the new leftest ideal: a court appointed child advocate against a "new explosion of children's rights laws"...  Welcome to your Brave New World..



Or.....you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. You've imagined the 'lawyers sharpening their quills'. And your record of predicting legal outcomes is one of perfect failure.

With you literally being wrong every time you offer us such a prediction.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please give me a list of states that recognize children being an implicit part of a marriage contract. I'll wait...
> 
> Remember, citing your imagination doesn't count.
> 
> 
> 
> That's like me asking you to give me a list of states twenty years ago that recognize gays marrying....  You know civil rights movements take time.  What, are you now going to start advocating that children aren't the most powerless demographic with unique rights of their own in marriage?
Click to expand...


We'll make it easy for you. Name ONE state that recognizes that children are an implicit part of the marriage contract. 

You can't. You're making this shit up as you go along. Neither the law nor the courts recognize any of it. As for '20 years from now', you've never once made an accurate legal prediction. You've always been wrong. 

On the Windsor decision,* you were wrong. *

On the implications of 'constitutional guarantees' in the Windsor decision, *you were wrong. *

On the Obergefell decision you were wrong. On Kennedy's stay for the State of Utah, *you were wrong. *

On the legal bases for the Obergefell decision,* you were wrong. 
*
On the application of the Loving decision, *you were wrong. *

On Kennedy's mindset regarding same sex marriage and children, *you were wrong. *

On the relationship between parents and children recognized under Obergefell *you were wrong.*

On Kim Davis' appeal to the Supreme Court, *you were wrong. *

*Not once, in any capacity, have you ever been right about any legal prediction you've ever made.* And the reason is obvious: you keep citing your imagination as the law.

And it isn't.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Tipsycatlover said:


> I'm an advocate BECAUSE a child has no rights arising out of the marriage but certain defined rights separate from the marriage.   None of those rights are to a mother and a father.    Children have never had a right to a mother or a father.



  Children need a father and a mother.  Children who are deprived of this are at a significant disadvantage, and are likely to have less favorable life outcomes, than those who are not so deprived.  Since before I was born, our society has been well aware of the tragic consequences of children coming from “broken homes”, and of the need society has to discourage this from happening.  But foolishly, not only have we come to disregard this, and to treat “broken homes” as normal and proper, but we even now encourage the creation of ersatz “homes” that are inherently and irreparably broken to begin with.  I suppose you're glad of this, as this creates the circumstances by which you make your living.  You're like a dentist who advocates against brushing and flossing, because neglected teeth mean more income for you.

  The purpose of marriage is rooted in biology.  Men and women are driven by instinct to couple in a way that tends to result in the creation of new human beings, who, for quite some time, require the care of both parents.  Marriage is about establishing the family relationship, and holding men and women responsible to each other, and to the children that they produce; and seeing that the rights of all—especially that of the children to the care and support of both parents—are protected.

  The idea that children do not have a right to both parents is a Marxist principle.  Marx saw marriage and family as“bourgeois” elements of the sort of society that he wanted to eliminate.  Children being rendered fatherless or motherless—something that any rational person would recognize as a tragic, harmful circumstance—plays right into Marx's ideas of a collectivist society, where the care of children, like everything else, was a collective responsibility of the whole society rather than of the parents and families of each child.  Oddly, we've gone much farther in pushing this Marxist ideal here in what is ostensibly a free, individualistic society, than it has ever been taken in any overtly-Marxist societies.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> The purpose of marriage is rooted in biology.  Men and women are driven by instinct to couple in a way that tends to result in the creation of new human beings, who, for quite some time, require the care of both parents.  Marriage is about establishing the family relationship, and holding men and women responsible to each other, and to the children that they produce; and seeing that the rights of all—especially that of the children to the care and support of both parents—are protected.



Say who? Infertile couples can still marry. Couples too old to have kids can still marry. Couples too old to have kids can *stay* married. Nor does any State require that a couple have kids or be able to have kids in order to marry.

You're offering us your subjective opinion and then insisting that this opinion defines marriage objectively.

Nope.



> The idea that children do not have a right to both parents is a Marxist principle.  Marx saw marriage and family as“bourgeois” elements of the sort of society that he wanted to eliminate.  Children being rendered fatherless or motherless—something that any rational person would recognize as a tragic, harmful circumstance—plays right into Marx's ideas of a collectivist society, where the care of children, like everything else, was a collective responsibility of the whole society rather than of the parents and families of each child.  Oddly, we've gone much farther in pushing this Marxist ideal here in what is ostensibly a free, individualistic society, than it has ever been taken in any overtly-Marxist societies.



Dear God, do *all* of your arguments rely on the ignorance of your audience?

*Marx argued against the institution of marriage existing at all.* Same sex marriage enthusiastically argues for the institution of marriage.  Making same sex marriage about as far from Marxism as it is philosophically possible to be.


----------



## Katzndogz

Bob Blaylock said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an advocate BECAUSE a child has no rights arising out of the marriage but certain defined rights separate from the marriage.   None of those rights are to a mother and a father.    Children have never had a right to a mother or a father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Children need a father and a mother.  Children who are deprived of this are at a significant disadvantage, and are likely to have less favorable life outcomes, than those who are not so deprived.  Since before I was born, our society has been well aware of the tragic consequences of children coming from “broken homes”, and of the need society has to discourage this from happening.  But foolishly, not only have we come to disregard this, and to treat “broken homes” as normal and proper, but we even now encourage the creation of ersatz “homes” that are inherently and irreparably broken to begin with.  I suppose you're glad of this, as this creates the circumstances by which you make your living.  You're like a dentist who advocates against brushing and flossing, because neglected teeth mean more income for you.
> 
> The purpose of marriage is rooted in biology.  Men and women are driven by instinct to couple in a way that tends to result in the creation of new human beings, who, for quite some time, require the care of both parents.  Marriage is about establishing the family relationship, and holding men and women responsible to each other, and to the children that they produce; and seeing that the rights of all—especially that of the children to the care and support of both parents—are protected.
> 
> The idea that children do not have a right to both parents is a Marxist principle.  Marx saw marriage and family as“bourgeois” elements of the sort of society that he wanted to eliminate.  Children being rendered fatherless or motherless—something that any rational person would recognize as a tragic, harmful circumstance—plays right into Marx's ideas of a collectivist society, where the care of children, like everything else, was a collective responsibility of the whole society rather than of the parents and families of each child.  Oddly, we've gone much farther in pushing this Marxist ideal here in what is ostensibly a free, individualistic society, than it has ever been taken in any overtly-Marxist societies.
Click to expand...

While I might agree with you in principle,  legally children have never had rights in a marriage, don't now and never will.  The concept of marriage has never been about children.  Marriage has always been about property rights not biological rights.  This includes the right of a male to have his property inherited by his biological son.  Since historically women couldn't inherit, daughters had far less rights than sons.  Meaning that children have no rights in parental marriage.


----------



## Silhouette

Tipsycatlover said:


> ...legally children have never had rights in a marriage, don't now and never will.  The concept of marriage has never been about children.  Marriage has always been about property rights not biological rights.  This includes the right of a male to have his property inherited by his biological son.  Since historically women couldn't inherit, daughters had far less rights than sons.  Meaning that children have no rights in parental marriage.



Apparently first born sons...long after marriage was established to create a structure to keep children without either a mother or father having them instead...did have rights.  So, ergo, children even during the dark ages of marriage where children were traded, they were part of the marriage contract.  You just proved those points!  What would've happened if a man and wife tried to marry off someone else's daughter for example?  

Proving that children aren't implicit parties to the modern (and original) concept of marriage (mother and father) is going to be so friggin' hard for your cult, that you should find not just the best lawyers in the country, you should start searching the four corners of the earth...


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Silhouette said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...legally children have never had rights in a marriage, don't now and never will.  The concept of marriage has never been about children.  Marriage has always been about property rights not biological rights.  This includes the right of a male to have his property inherited by his biological son.  Since historically women couldn't inherit, daughters had far less rights than sons.  Meaning that children have no rights in parental marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently first born sons...long after marriage was established to create a structure to keep children without either a mother or father having them instead...did have rights.  So, ergo, children even during the dark ages of marriage where children were traded, they were part of the marriage contract.  You just proved those points!  What would've happened if a man and wife tried to marry off someone else's daughter for example?
> 
> Proving that children aren't implicit parties to the modern (and original) concept of marriage (mother and father) is going to be so friggin' hard for your cult, that you should find not just the best lawyers in the country, you should start searching the four corners of the earth...
Click to expand...

Name even one child that ever had standing to stop a marriage or a divorce?  Oh right, you can't...


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...legally children have never had rights in a marriage, don't now and never will.  The concept of marriage has never been about children.  Marriage has always been about property rights not biological rights.  This includes the right of a male to have his property inherited by his biological son.  Since historically women couldn't inherit, daughters had far less rights than sons.  Meaning that children have no rights in parental marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently first born sons...long after marriage was established to create a structure to keep children without either a mother or father having them instead...did have rights.  So, ergo, children even during the dark ages of marriage where children were traded, they were part of the marriage contract.  You just proved those points!  What would've happened if a man and wife tried to marry off someone else's daughter for example?
Click to expand...


Nope. Children are not nor were part of the 'marriage contract'. No law nor court recognizes them as such. Not as parties, not as third party beneficiaries. And contrary to your claims, children are not 'married' to their parents.

And you're citing parentage as the source of obligations and authority. Not marriage. Killing your argument yet again.



> Proving that children aren't implicit parties to the modern (and original) concept of marriage (mother and father) is going to be so friggin' hard for your cult, that you should find not just the best lawyers in the country, you should start searching the four corners of the earth...



Um, Sil? No one has to 'disprove' any of your pseudo-legal gibberish. Remember, same sex marriage is already legal in 50 of 50 States.

Its you that has to prove your argument is legally factual. And you can't. As your only source is you, citing your imagination.

That's not a legal argument.


----------



## Skylar

PaintMyHouse said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...legally children have never had rights in a marriage, don't now and never will.  The concept of marriage has never been about children.  Marriage has always been about property rights not biological rights.  This includes the right of a male to have his property inherited by his biological son.  Since historically women couldn't inherit, daughters had far less rights than sons.  Meaning that children have no rights in parental marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently first born sons...long after marriage was established to create a structure to keep children without either a mother or father having them instead...did have rights.  So, ergo, children even during the dark ages of marriage where children were traded, they were part of the marriage contract.  You just proved those points!  What would've happened if a man and wife tried to marry off someone else's daughter for example?
> 
> Proving that children aren't implicit parties to the modern (and original) concept of marriage (mother and father) is going to be so friggin' hard for your cult, that you should find not just the best lawyers in the country, you should start searching the four corners of the earth...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name even one child that ever had standing to stop a marriage or a divorce?  Oh right, you can't...
Click to expand...


Or one Supreme Court case where 'all children' have had a 'representative'....

Or one instance of the Infancy Doctrine from Business law every being applied to marriage....

Or one law or court that recognize the marriage of parents as creating a minor contract for their children....

Or one law or court that recognize children as third party beneficiaries of marriage....

Or one law or court that recognizes that children are 'married' to their parents....


The list of Sil's empty, pseudo-legal gibberish is nearly endless. And in every case, its just Sil, citing Sil...insisting her imagination is the law.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...legally children have never had rights in a marriage, don't now and never will.  The concept of marriage has never been about children.  Marriage has always been about property rights not biological rights.  This includes the right of a male to have his property inherited by his biological son.  Since historically women couldn't inherit, daughters had far less rights than sons.  Meaning that children have no rights in parental marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently first born sons...long after marriage was established to create a structure to keep children without either a mother or father having them instead...did have rights.  So, ergo, children even during the dark ages of marriage where children were traded, they were part of the marriage contract.  You just proved those points!  What would've happened if a man and wife tried to marry off someone else's daughter for example?
> 
> Proving that children aren't implicit parties to the modern (and original) concept of marriage (mother and father) is going to be so friggin' hard for your cult, that you should find not just the best lawyers in the country, you should start searching the four corners of the earth...
Click to expand...


Children are an implicit part of a marriage contract in modern society and that is why every state recognizes them as such in a marriage contract. Oh wait...not a single state does. Perhaps you're thinking of Imaginationland again?


----------



## Katzndogz

Silhouette said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...legally children have never had rights in a marriage, don't now and never will.  The concept of marriage has never been about children.  Marriage has always been about property rights not biological rights.  This includes the right of a male to have his property inherited by his biological son.  Since historically women couldn't inherit, daughters had far less rights than sons.  Meaning that children have no rights in parental marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently first born sons...long after marriage was established to create a structure to keep children without either a mother or father having them instead...did have rights.  So, ergo, children even during the dark ages of marriage where children were traded, they were part of the marriage contract.  You just proved those points!  What would've happened if a man and wife tried to marry off someone else's daughter for example?
> 
> Proving that children aren't implicit parties to the modern (and original) concept of marriage (mother and father) is going to be so friggin' hard for your cult, that you should find not just the best lawyers in the country, you should start searching the four corners of the earth...
Click to expand...

You are mixed up.  Even a first born son had no rights in the marriage and had no rights of inheritance at all.   While children were traded they were no more a part of the marriage contract than a horse and had no more rights than a goat or heifer.

You find this so important, that of course children as important human beings must have rights to a loving family with a mother and a father.  In fact, children have no such rights.  If the mother in the family decides to chuck it all and leave, no child has the right or power to drag her back.  If the father decides to bring in a same sex partner the child has no right or power to stop him.  There is no emerging area of law in children's rights to a mother and father.  There is no power to force a woman to be a mother and certainly no court has ever forced a man to be a father.


----------



## Katzndogz

Skylar said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...legally children have never had rights in a marriage, don't now and never will.  The concept of marriage has never been about children.  Marriage has always been about property rights not biological rights.  This includes the right of a male to have his property inherited by his biological son.  Since historically women couldn't inherit, daughters had far less rights than sons.  Meaning that children have no rights in parental marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently first born sons...long after marriage was established to create a structure to keep children without either a mother or father having them instead...did have rights.  So, ergo, children even during the dark ages of marriage where children were traded, they were part of the marriage contract.  You just proved those points!  What would've happened if a man and wife tried to marry off someone else's daughter for example?
> 
> Proving that children aren't implicit parties to the modern (and original) concept of marriage (mother and father) is going to be so friggin' hard for your cult, that you should find not just the best lawyers in the country, you should start searching the four corners of the earth...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name even one child that ever had standing to stop a marriage or a divorce?  Oh right, you can't...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or one Supreme Court case where 'all children' have had a 'representative'....
> 
> Or one instance of the Infancy Doctrine from Business law every being applied to marriage....
> 
> Or one law or court that recognize the marriage of parents as creating a minor contract for their children....
> 
> Or one law or court that recognize children as third party beneficiaries of marriage....
> 
> Or one law or court that recognizes that children are 'married' to their parents....
> 
> 
> The list of Sil's empty, pseudo-legal gibberish is nearly endless. And in every case, its just Sil, citing Sil...insisting her imagination is the law.
Click to expand...

When you and I agree, you know this poor soul has it all wrong.


----------



## Skylar

Tipsycatlover said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...legally children have never had rights in a marriage, don't now and never will.  The concept of marriage has never been about children.  Marriage has always been about property rights not biological rights.  This includes the right of a male to have his property inherited by his biological son.  Since historically women couldn't inherit, daughters had far less rights than sons.  Meaning that children have no rights in parental marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently first born sons...long after marriage was established to create a structure to keep children without either a mother or father having them instead...did have rights.  So, ergo, children even during the dark ages of marriage where children were traded, they were part of the marriage contract.  You just proved those points!  What would've happened if a man and wife tried to marry off someone else's daughter for example?
> 
> Proving that children aren't implicit parties to the modern (and original) concept of marriage (mother and father) is going to be so friggin' hard for your cult, that you should find not just the best lawyers in the country, you should start searching the four corners of the earth...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name even one child that ever had standing to stop a marriage or a divorce?  Oh right, you can't...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or one Supreme Court case where 'all children' have had a 'representative'....
> 
> Or one instance of the Infancy Doctrine from Business law every being applied to marriage....
> 
> Or one law or court that recognize the marriage of parents as creating a minor contract for their children....
> 
> Or one law or court that recognize children as third party beneficiaries of marriage....
> 
> Or one law or court that recognizes that children are 'married' to their parents....
> 
> 
> The list of Sil's empty, pseudo-legal gibberish is nearly endless. And in every case, its just Sil, citing Sil...insisting her imagination is the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you and I agree, you know this poor soul has it all wrong.
Click to expand...


Laughing......its kinda weirding me out too.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Keep hoping Skylar.  Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws,..



Not one lawyer has said that they agree with you.

The voices in your head are not lawyers- keep repeating that until you can understand that.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep hoping Skylar.  Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws,..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not one lawyer has said that they agree with you.
> 
> The voices in your head are not lawyers- keep repeating that until you can understand that.
Click to expand...

That's weird, I wonder if any of the 80-90% of the people who agrees with me in the poll above is a lawyer?  72 votes thus far.  86% feel a child having both a mother and father is important.  And, as you know, gay marriage does not ever provide that to children...


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep hoping Skylar.  Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws,..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not one lawyer has said that they agree with you.
> 
> The voices in your head are not lawyers- keep repeating that until you can understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's weird, I wonder if any of the 80-90% of the people who agrees with me in the poll above is a lawyer?  72 votes thus far.  86% feel a child having both a mother and father is important.  And, as you know, gay marriage does not ever provide that to children...
Click to expand...


Its weird....the obscure message board straw poll that you can vote in as many times as you'd like? It doesn't mention marriage or contracts.

Did you genuinely hallucinate those into the poll? When you look at it do you actually see mention of things that simply aren't there?

Or do you just lie without thinking?


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Gracie said:


> what the FUCK does political party have to do with whether someone had a mother and father in their life?
> 
> Stupid.
> 
> /thread
> /poll



The poll could have been did you have contact with your father and mother, and have you ever been a member of a union. Or have you always ignored politics. 

For our purposes, it seems like party affiliation is the only good question.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Skylar said:


> Its a lead in to Sil's all consuming obsession: her hatred of gays.



Why press the subject when that is not what you want to see? It could be about how conservatives call for abstinence, family planning, family values, etc., and liberals really don't give a shit.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Dhara said:


> I suspect you have an agenda, and view about it already.



These are core of the core values. How could someone over 18 not?


----------



## ChrisL

I had a mother and a father growing up, and I'm not either a democrat or republican.  I don't see what that has to do with your political leanings.  I know plenty of people who were raised in upper middle class/wealthy two parent households who are democrats and some more poor people who are republicans, so it really is inconsequential in most cases I think.


----------



## ChrisL

I was raised by both parents (they didn't divorce until I was older), and I can tell you that my upbringing was far from ideal.  Lol.


----------



## Katzndogz

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep hoping Skylar.  Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws,..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not one lawyer has said that they agree with you.
> 
> The voices in your head are not lawyers- keep repeating that until you can understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's weird, I wonder if any of the 80-90% of the people who agrees with me in the poll above is a lawyer?  72 votes thus far.  86% feel a child having both a mother and father is important.  And, as you know, gay marriage does not ever provide that to children...
Click to expand...

Having a mother and a father is important.  Gay marriage does not and cannot supply a developing child with everything essential to their well being.  Are you with me so far?

Children are still not part of any marriage contract and have no rights in the marriage itself.   The law currently does not find the presence of a mother and father essential to a child's growth.  Two parents are optimum, without regard  to gender.  That is current law.   So, don't look for a break open new set of laws.


----------



## Skylar

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a lead in to Sil's all consuming obsession: her hatred of gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why press the subject when that is not what you want to see? It could be about how conservatives call for abstinence, family planning, family values, etc., and liberals really don't give a shit.
Click to expand...


Sil has 54 threads on the same topic: gays. She has paid to have a website built dedicated to her fight against gays. She created a messageboard on yuku where she is the only participant and has 29 more threads on the same topic: gays. 29 threads were she only talks _to herself._

Trust me, it was coming up regardless. She's compulsively obsessed with the topic. She can't help herself.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Skylar said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a lead in to Sil's all consuming obsession: her hatred of gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why press the subject when that is not what you want to see? It could be about how conservatives call for abstinence, family planning, family values, etc., and liberals really don't give a shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sil has 54 threads on the same topic: gays. She has paid to have a website built dedicated to her fight against gays. She created a messageboard on yuku where she is the only participant and has 29 more threads on the same topic: gays. 29 threads were she only talks _to herself._
> 
> Trust me, it was coming up regardless. She's compulsively obsessed with the topic. She can't help herself.
Click to expand...


It seems to me that such a thing would be off-topic.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

I haven't read the thread, but a consistent angle towards gays wouldn't make any sense.


----------



## ChrisL

Tipsycatlover said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep hoping Skylar.  Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws,..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not one lawyer has said that they agree with you.
> 
> The voices in your head are not lawyers- keep repeating that until you can understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's weird, I wonder if any of the 80-90% of the people who agrees with me in the poll above is a lawyer?  72 votes thus far.  86% feel a child having both a mother and father is important.  And, as you know, gay marriage does not ever provide that to children...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Having a mother and a father is important.  Gay marriage does not and cannot supply a developing child with everything essential to their well being.  Are you with me so far?
> 
> Children are still not part of any marriage contract and have no rights in the marriage itself.   The law currently does not find the presence of a mother and father essential to a child's growth.  Two parents are optimum, without regard  to gender.  That is current law.   So, don't look for a break open new set of laws.
Click to expand...


You were raised by a mother and a father?  Hmm.


----------



## ChrisL

Skylar said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a lead in to Sil's all consuming obsession: her hatred of gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why press the subject when that is not what you want to see? It could be about how conservatives call for abstinence, family planning, family values, etc., and liberals really don't give a shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sil has 54 threads on the same topic: gays. She has paid to have a website built dedicated to her fight against gays. She created a messageboard on yuku where she is the only participant and has 29 more threads on the same topic: gays. 29 threads were she only talks _to herself._
> 
> Trust me, it was coming up regardless. She's compulsively obsessed with the topic. She can't help herself.
Click to expand...


I thought it was a he???  It's usually guys who obsess about gay sex.


----------



## ChrisL

I found this pretty interesting.  You can agree or disagree but it is still interesting and makes sense.  I think that men who obsess about gays could possibly be gay themselves.  That is why they feel so threatened by it.  

Men: More Homophobic Than Women?


----------



## Skylar

ChrisL said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a lead in to Sil's all consuming obsession: her hatred of gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why press the subject when that is not what you want to see? It could be about how conservatives call for abstinence, family planning, family values, etc., and liberals really don't give a shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sil has 54 threads on the same topic: gays. She has paid to have a website built dedicated to her fight against gays. She created a messageboard on yuku where she is the only participant and has 29 more threads on the same topic: gays. 29 threads were she only talks _to herself._
> 
> Trust me, it was coming up regardless. She's compulsively obsessed with the topic. She can't help herself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was a he???  It's usually guys who obsess about gay sex.
Click to expand...


Definitely a she. I was actually able to check.


----------



## ChrisL

Skylar said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a lead in to Sil's all consuming obsession: her hatred of gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why press the subject when that is not what you want to see? It could be about how conservatives call for abstinence, family planning, family values, etc., and liberals really don't give a shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sil has 54 threads on the same topic: gays. She has paid to have a website built dedicated to her fight against gays. She created a messageboard on yuku where she is the only participant and has 29 more threads on the same topic: gays. 29 threads were she only talks _to herself._
> 
> Trust me, it was coming up regardless. She's compulsively obsessed with the topic. She can't help herself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was a he???  It's usually guys who obsess about gay sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definitely a she. I was actually able to check.
Click to expand...


Did you lift her tail?


----------



## EverCurious

Sil confirmed she was female a while back, when she explained to us that a group of gay men allegedly attempted to gang rape her into giving homosexually a test run.


----------



## ChrisL

EverCurious said:


> Sil confirmed she was female a while back, when she explained to us that a group of gay men allegedly attempted to gang rape her into giving homosexually a test run.



Wow.  Lol.    Usually women don't really care . . . well, maybe when they see a really hot guy and find out he's gay.  That can be a bummer I suppose.


----------



## EverCurious

This is actually true - I've met tons of really awesome guys and yelled at them for being gay heh


----------



## mdk

ChrisL said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil confirmed she was female a while back, when she explained to us that a group of gay men allegedly attempted to gang rape her into giving homosexually a test run.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Lol.    Usually women don't really care . . . well, maybe when they see a really hot guy and find out he's gay.  That can be a bummer I suppose.
Click to expand...


Story of my life. lol


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Tipsycatlover said:


> Having a mother and a father is important.  Gay marriage does not and cannot supply a developing child with everything essential to their well being.  Are you with me so far?
> 
> Children are still not part of any marriage contract and have no rights in the marriage itself.   The law currently does not find the presence of a mother and father essential to a child's growth.  Two parents are optimum, without regard  to gender.  That is current law.   So, don't look for a break open new set of laws.



  Which goes to show that the law, as it is currently being applied, is simply wrong.  _“The law is a ass, a idiot.”_

  Our society used to enact and apply laws that were based on a correct recognition of the importance to a child's well-being of having both a father and a mother in the home.  We've discarded this in the name of “equality”.  We've purged our laws and our application thereof, of recognition of the essential differences between male and female.  We've mistaken madness for enlightenment and progress.


----------



## Silhouette

Well tipsy is wrong.  It's that simple.  The contract is implied and children's share in it is implied.  Implied contracts are as valid as written ones.  So brush up on contract law.  Then brush up on the Infant Doctrine and necessities.  A child CANNOT be deprived of a necessity via a contract of any kind.  Such a contract is wholly invalid.  Even if the contract is found "to not include children".  If any contract exists whose terms produce onerous terms to children, who are in fact involved in marriage, that contract isn't merely voidable upon challenge; it is void immediately before its ink is dry.  So, in the purest legal technical terms, the minute two gay people fill out a marriage license at any clerk's office, before the ink is dry, that contract is already void.


----------



## ChrisL

mdk said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil confirmed she was female a while back, when she explained to us that a group of gay men allegedly attempted to gang rape her into giving homosexually a test run.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Lol.    Usually women don't really care . . . well, maybe when they see a really hot guy and find out he's gay.  That can be a bummer I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Story of my life. lol
Click to expand...


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep hoping Skylar.  Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws,..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not one lawyer has said that they agree with you.
> 
> The voices in your head are not lawyers- keep repeating that until you can understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's weird, I wonder if any of the 80-90% of the people who agrees with me in the poll above is a lawyer? \...
Click to expand...


Just pointing out again- not one lawyer has said that they agree with you- about anything.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Well tipsy is wrong.  It's that simple.  The contract is implied and children's share in it is implied.  .



Not one lawyer, not one court, not one rational person has agreed with you.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having a mother and a father is important.  Gay marriage does not and cannot supply a developing child with everything essential to their well being.  Are you with me so far?
> 
> Children are still not part of any marriage contract and have no rights in the marriage itself.   The law currently does not find the presence of a mother and father essential to a child's growth.  Two parents are optimum, without regard  to gender.  That is current law.   So, don't look for a break open new set of laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which goes to show that the law, as it is currently being applied, is simply wrong.  _“The law is a ass, a idiot.”_
> 
> Our society used to enact and apply laws that were based on a correct recognition of the importance to a child's well-being of having both a father and a mother in the home.  We've discarded this in the name of “equality”.  We've purged our laws and our application thereof, of recognition of the essential differences between male and female.  We've mistaken madness for enlightenment and progress.
Click to expand...


What BS.

Children used to be virtual chattel of the father. Before child labor laws a father could hire his child out- and before child protection laws, a father could legally beat his child almost to death. 

When divorce happened- which it did happen- men got custody- and children were dragged away from their mothers with no visitation at all. 

There was never a time when 'a child's well being' was considered to be dependent on having a mother and a father- if a child had enough food and a roof over his head he was considered well taken care of. 

This is all revisionist history to rationalize discrimination against gays.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Well tipsy is wrong.  It's that simple.  The contract is implied and children's share in it is implied.  Implied contracts are as valid as written ones.  So brush up on contract law.  Then brush up on the Infant Doctrine and necessities.  A child CANNOT be deprived of a necessity via a contract of any kind.  Such a contract is wholly invalid.  Even if the contract is found "to not include children".  If any contract exists whose terms produce onerous terms to children, who are in fact involved in marriage, that contract isn't merely voidable upon challenge; it is void immediately before its ink is dry.  So, in the purest legal technical terms, the minute two gay people fill out a marriage license at any clerk's office, before the ink is dry, that contract is already void.



The silly legal yarns you spin just to hurt homos is highly hysterical. Using these illogical and odd standards, you just made every single divorce in this nation void before the ink was dry. Something tells me that they don't have to follow this standard, though. Only queers are subject to these imaginary standards of yours.


----------



## ChrisL

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well tipsy is wrong.  It's that simple.  The contract is implied and children's share in it is implied.  Implied contracts are as valid as written ones.  So brush up on contract law.  Then brush up on the Infant Doctrine and necessities.  A child CANNOT be deprived of a necessity via a contract of any kind.  Such a contract is wholly invalid.  Even if the contract is found "to not include children".  If any contract exists whose terms produce onerous terms to children, who are in fact involved in marriage, that contract isn't merely voidable upon challenge; it is void immediately before its ink is dry.  So, in the purest legal technical terms, the minute two gay people fill out a marriage license at any clerk's office, before the ink is dry, that contract is already void.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The silly legal yarns you spin just to hurt homos is highly hysterical. Using these illogical and odd standards, you just made every single divorce in this nation void before the ink was dry. Something tells me that they don't have to follow this standard, though. Only queers are subject to these imaginary standards of yours.
Click to expand...


Isn't it strange, the amount of hatred you have to put up with just because of your sexual orientation?  People are fucked up.  Lol.


----------



## mdk

ChrisL said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well tipsy is wrong.  It's that simple.  The contract is implied and children's share in it is implied.  Implied contracts are as valid as written ones.  So brush up on contract law.  Then brush up on the Infant Doctrine and necessities.  A child CANNOT be deprived of a necessity via a contract of any kind.  Such a contract is wholly invalid.  Even if the contract is found "to not include children".  If any contract exists whose terms produce onerous terms to children, who are in fact involved in marriage, that contract isn't merely voidable upon challenge; it is void immediately before its ink is dry.  So, in the purest legal technical terms, the minute two gay people fill out a marriage license at any clerk's office, before the ink is dry, that contract is already void.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The silly legal yarns you spin just to hurt homos is highly hysterical. Using these illogical and odd standards, you just made every single divorce in this nation void before the ink was dry. Something tells me that they don't have to follow this standard, though. Only queers are subject to these imaginary standards of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it strange, the amount of hatred you have to put up with just because of your sexual orientation?  People are fucked up.  Lol.
Click to expand...


Luckily, I don't have any in my life. I have wonderful family and friends. My husband and I are both well respected members of the city. People pretty much leave us alone...unless they want our money. lol


----------



## ChrisL

mdk said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well tipsy is wrong.  It's that simple.  The contract is implied and children's share in it is implied.  Implied contracts are as valid as written ones.  So brush up on contract law.  Then brush up on the Infant Doctrine and necessities.  A child CANNOT be deprived of a necessity via a contract of any kind.  Such a contract is wholly invalid.  Even if the contract is found "to not include children".  If any contract exists whose terms produce onerous terms to children, who are in fact involved in marriage, that contract isn't merely voidable upon challenge; it is void immediately before its ink is dry.  So, in the purest legal technical terms, the minute two gay people fill out a marriage license at any clerk's office, before the ink is dry, that contract is already void.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The silly legal yarns you spin just to hurt homos is highly hysterical. Using these illogical and odd standards, you just made every single divorce in this nation void before the ink was dry. Something tells me that they don't have to follow this standard, though. Only queers are subject to these imaginary standards of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it strange, the amount of hatred you have to put up with just because of your sexual orientation?  People are fucked up.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Luckily, I don't have any in my life. I have wonderful family and friends. My husband and I are both well respected members of the city. People pretty much leave us alone...unless they want our money. lol
Click to expand...


Happy to hear that, sweetie!


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Well tipsy is wrong.  It's that simple.  The contract is implied and children's share in it is implied.  Implied contracts are as valid as written ones.  So brush up on contract law.  Then brush up on the Infant Doctrine and necessities.  A child CANNOT be deprived of a necessity via a contract of any kind.  Such a contract is wholly invalid.  Even if the contract is found "to not include children".  If any contract exists whose terms produce onerous terms to children, who are in fact involved in marriage, that contract isn't merely voidable upon challenge; it is void immediately before its ink is dry.  So, in the purest legal technical terms, the minute two gay people fill out a marriage license at any clerk's office, before the ink is dry, that contract is already void.





mdk said:


> The silly legal yarns you spin just to hurt homos is highly hysterical. Using these illogical and odd standards, you just made every single divorce in this nation void before the ink was dry. Something tells me that they don't have to follow this standard, though. Only queers are subject to these imaginary standards of yours.





ChrisL said:


> Isn't it strange, the amount of hatred you have to put up with just because of your sexual orientation?  People are fucked up.  Lol.



Says the poster who apparently voted against the 80-90% of Americans who feel it's important a child have both a mother and father..

Is it the 80-90% who are "fucked up", or is it you Chris?...  I guess being "fucked up" is all a matter of perspective....

Gays "sexual orientation" is their business.  When they try to make it everyone else's business, even children who have no power to resist them, that's when we see who is truly "fucked up" in the equation.


----------



## ChrisL

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well tipsy is wrong.  It's that simple.  The contract is implied and children's share in it is implied.  Implied contracts are as valid as written ones.  So brush up on contract law.  Then brush up on the Infant Doctrine and necessities.  A child CANNOT be deprived of a necessity via a contract of any kind.  Such a contract is wholly invalid.  Even if the contract is found "to not include children".  If any contract exists whose terms produce onerous terms to children, who are in fact involved in marriage, that contract isn't merely voidable upon challenge; it is void immediately before its ink is dry.  So, in the purest legal technical terms, the minute two gay people fill out a marriage license at any clerk's office, before the ink is dry, that contract is already void.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The silly legal yarns you spin just to hurt homos is highly hysterical. Using these illogical and odd standards, you just made every single divorce in this nation void before the ink was dry. Something tells me that they don't have to follow this standard, though. Only queers are subject to these imaginary standards of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it strange, the amount of hatred you have to put up with just because of your sexual orientation?  People are fucked up.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the poster who apparently voted against the 80-90% of Americans who feel it's important a child have both a mother and father..
> 
> Is it the 80-90% who are "fucked up", or is it you Chris?...  I guess being "fucked up" is all a matter of perspective....
> 
> Gays "sexual orientation" is their business.  When they try to make it everyone else's business, even children who have no power to resist them, that's when we see who is truly "fucked up" in the equation.
Click to expand...


I didn't vote, you absolute moron.  Lol.  You have some issues.  Maybe if you stopped obsessing about what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms, you would have a life?


----------



## sealybobo

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well tipsy is wrong.  It's that simple.  The contract is implied and children's share in it is implied.  Implied contracts are as valid as written ones.  So brush up on contract law.  Then brush up on the Infant Doctrine and necessities.  A child CANNOT be deprived of a necessity via a contract of any kind.  Such a contract is wholly invalid.  Even if the contract is found "to not include children".  If any contract exists whose terms produce onerous terms to children, who are in fact involved in marriage, that contract isn't merely voidable upon challenge; it is void immediately before its ink is dry.  So, in the purest legal technical terms, the minute two gay people fill out a marriage license at any clerk's office, before the ink is dry, that contract is already void.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The silly legal yarns you spin just to hurt homos is highly hysterical. Using these illogical and odd standards, you just made every single divorce in this nation void before the ink was dry. Something tells me that they don't have to follow this standard, though. Only queers are subject to these imaginary standards of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it strange, the amount of hatred you have to put up with just because of your sexual orientation?  People are fucked up.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the poster who apparently voted against the 80-90% of Americans who feel it's important a child have both a mother and father..
> 
> Is it the 80-90% who are "fucked up", or is it you Chris?...  I guess being "fucked up" is all a matter of perspective....
Click to expand...

I want to know what bastards voted it isn't important. They're just telling themselves that

Or that person had bad parents? Better to have 1 good parent than 1 good and 1 bad. Not all people are good influences on their kids. Should Scarface have raised a child? Id rather a loving gay couple raise the child. At least I know it'll be loved even if it grows up to be gay.

Do I prefer straight couples get first dips at adopting? Sure.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well tipsy is wrong.  It's that simple.  The contract is implied and children's share in it is implied.  Implied contracts are as valid as written ones.  So brush up on contract law.  Then brush up on the Infant Doctrine and necessities.  A child CANNOT be deprived of a necessity via a contract of any kind.  Such a contract is wholly invalid.  Even if the contract is found "to not include children".  If any contract exists whose terms produce onerous terms to children, who are in fact involved in marriage, that contract isn't merely voidable upon challenge; it is void immediately before its ink is dry.  So, in the purest legal technical terms, the minute two gay people fill out a marriage license at any clerk's office, before the ink is dry, that contract is already void.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The silly legal yarns you spin just to hurt homos is highly hysterical. Using these illogical and odd standards, you just made every single divorce in this nation void before the ink was dry. Something tells me that they don't have to follow this standard, though. Only queers are subject to these imaginary standards of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it strange, the amount of hatred you have to put up with just because of your sexual orientation?  People are fucked up.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the poster who apparently voted against the 80-90% of Americans who feel it's important a child have both a mother and father..
> 
> Is it the 80-90% who are "fucked up", or is it you Chris?...  I guess being "fucked up" is all a matter of perspective....
> 
> Gays "sexual orientation" is their business.  When they try to make it everyone else's business, even children who have no power to resist them, that's when we see who is truly "fucked up" in the equation.
Click to expand...


For it being 'their business' you sure do gas on about homos a great deal. Mind your household before you start poking your neb nose in mine.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Well tipsy is wrong.  It's that simple.  The contract is implied and children's share in it is implied.



Nope, its just you citing useless pseudo-legal gibberish of your own invention.

Your claims about children and marriage have changed over and over and you desperately scramble to different terms you don't understand, hoping one fits.

First you said children were 'married to their parents'. That was obvious horseshit. Then you said that marriage was a 'minor contract' for children. Which has hapless ignorance. Then you said that children are 'parties to the marriage contract'. But that was nonsense. Then you said they were 'third party beneficiaries'. Which was obvious gibberish.

Now your latest fixation is 'implied contract'. Which doesn't work, as children can't enter into implied contracts. Only explicit ones.

If your claims about contract law were valid, you wouldn't have had to keep changing them. You don't know the first thing about contract law.



> Implied contracts are as valid as written ones.  So brush up on contract law.



You're not citing contract law. You're citing yourself.

*Show us one law or court case in which children are recognized as parties to the marriage of their parents.* You can't. You made that up.



> Then brush up on the Infant Doctrine and necessities.  A child CANNOT be deprived of a necessity via a contract of any kind.  Such a contract is wholly invalid.



The Infancy Doctrine is Business Law. It has nothing to do with marriage. Nor can you show us one instance of the Infancy Doctrine ever being applied to marriage. You made that up.

And of course, no law nor court recognizes children as a party to the marriage of their parents.

You made that up too.



> Even if the contract is found "to not include children".  If any contract exists whose terms produce onerous terms to children, who are in fact involved in marriage, that contract isn't merely voidable upon challenge; it is void immediately before its ink is dry.  So, in the purest legal technical terms, the minute two gay people fill out a marriage license at any clerk's office, before the ink is dry, that contract is already void.



Nope. None of that is recognized by any law or any court. You made it up. And thus legally void pseudo-legal gibberish.

Which explains why same sex marriage legal in 50 of 50 states. And nothing you've typed on the topic is valid anywhere.


----------



## Katzndogz

There is no contract,  express or implied, between children and parents.   If there is a contract, what are the terms?   What is the consideration the child brings to establish the existence of the contract?  How is the contract breached by the parent?   What act constitutes a breach by the child?   

Start out with love as a contractual condition is void as against public policy.


----------



## Silhouette

Tipsycatlover said:


> *There is no contract,  express or implied, between children and parents*.   If there is a contract, what are the terms?   What is the consideration the child brings to establish the existence of the contract?  How is the contract breached by the parent?   What act constitutes a breach by the child?  Start out with love as a contractual condition is void as against public policy.



You're right.  But there is a contract that children have unique rights to...."marriage".  The contract is shared among adults and children of marriage.  And it's terms children needed and enjoyed up until last Summer were "a mother and father" bonded in a home from which the children there benefited from said.  Children don't "marry" their parents (yet, give the cult of LGBT enough time and warped precedents run wild..) and parents don't marry their children.  But by virtue of a man and woman marrying, the children who SHARE the contract get what they NEED ...a mom and dad..


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well tipsy is wrong.  It's that simple.  The contract is implied and children's share in it is implied.  Implied contracts are as valid as written ones.  So brush up on contract law.  Then brush up on the Infant Doctrine and necessities.  A child CANNOT be deprived of a necessity via a contract of any kind.  Such a contract is wholly invalid.  Even if the contract is found "to not include children".  If any contract exists whose terms produce onerous terms to children, who are in fact involved in marriage, that contract isn't merely voidable upon challenge; it is void immediately before its ink is dry.  So, in the purest legal technical terms, the minute two gay people fill out a marriage license at any clerk's office, before the ink is dry, that contract is already void.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The silly legal yarns you spin just to hurt homos is highly hysterical. Using these illogical and odd standards, you just made every single divorce in this nation void before the ink was dry. Something tells me that they don't have to follow this standard, though. Only queers are subject to these imaginary standards of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it strange, the amount of hatred you have to put up with just because of your sexual orientation?  People are fucked up.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays "sexual orientation" is their business.  When they try to make it everyone else's business, even children who have no power to resist them, that's when we see who is truly "fucked up" in the equation.
Click to expand...


A gay couple wanting to get married is no more making it someone else's business any more than when my wife and I got married, we made our sexual orientation everyone else's business.

Just stop your jihad against Homosexuals and the voices in your head will stop talking to you.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There is no contract,  express or implied, between children and parents*.   If there is a contract, what are the terms?   What is the consideration the child brings to establish the existence of the contract?  How is the contract breached by the parent?   What act constitutes a breach by the child?  Start out with love as a contractual condition is void as against public policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.  But there is a contract that children have unique rights to...."marriage".  ..
Click to expand...


Stop listening to the voices in your head. 

If that contract existed- Children could both require parents to divorce- and could prevent parents from divorcing- and that of course doesn't happen.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

ChrisL said:


> Maybe if you stopped obsessing about what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms…



  It's not about what people do in the privacy of their bedroom.  It's about perverts imposing their sickness on others without the consent of those others.


----------



## Katzndogz

Silhouette said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There is no contract,  express or implied, between children and parents*.   If there is a contract, what are the terms?   What is the consideration the child brings to establish the existence of the contract?  How is the contract breached by the parent?   What act constitutes a breach by the child?  Start out with love as a contractual condition is void as against public policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.  But there is a contract that children have unique rights to...."marriage".  The contract is shared among adults and children of marriage.  And it's terms children needed and enjoyed up until last Summer were "a mother and father" bonded in a home from which the children there benefited from said.  Children don't "marry" their parents (yet, give the cult of LGBT enough time and warped precedents run wild..) and parents don't marry their children.  But by virtue of a man and woman marrying, the children who SHARE the contract get what they NEED ...a mom and dad..
Click to expand...

I am going to try again.   Children do not share in the marriage contract.   There is no contractual provision,  express or implied that a child can enforce.  Nor has there ever been any part of the marital relationship enforceable by a child.   Surely you understand this.  A child may need a mom and a dad.  There is just no legal method that guarantees them a mom and a dad.  The courts have moved from mom and dad to two parents.  The statutory language is being rewritten to reflect two parents rather than mom and dad.

Is this twisted?   Yes.  Will it result in dysfunctional deranged  children?  Certainly.  In the future it might be recognized that something terrible was done to children.  That's not today.  Today you are flat wrong.


----------



## Silhouette

Bob Blaylock said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if you stopped obsessing about what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about what people do in the privacy of their bedroom.  It's about perverts imposing their sickness on others without the consent of those others.
Click to expand...

Especially when those "others" are children who are protected from adults as to their needs via the Infants Doctrine.  Ancient law.  And New York vs Ferber.


----------



## Silhouette

Tipsycatlover said:


> I am going to try again.   Children do not share in the marriage contract.   There is no contractual provision,  express or implied that a child can enforce.



Oh, children don't enforce necessity contracts: courts do.  And children do in fact implicitly share and enjoy the marriage contract...they were the reason it was created over a thousand years ago.  To cure the ills of children being without a mother and father.  You can blow hard until the cows come home but the facts surrounding infants and contract law are in the bedrock of the foundation of American law.  You've got a long hard road ahead of you convincing a court that children aren't in any way shape or form part of marriage; or that they 'never derived enjoyments or necessities from the marriage contract'.

Good luck! (Google "implied contracts" if you're still confused...)


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to try again.   Children do not share in the marriage contract.   There is no contractual provision,  express or implied that a child can enforce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, children don't enforce necessity contracts: courts do.  And children do in fact implicitly share and enjoy the marriage contract...they were the reason it was created over a thousand years ago.  To cure the ills of children being without a mother and father.  You can blow hard until the cows come home but the facts surrounding infants and contract law are in the bedrock of the foundation of American law.  You've got a long hard road ahead of you convincing a court that children aren't in any way shape or form part of marriage; or that they 'never derived enjoyments or necessities from the marriage contract'.
> 
> Good luck! (Google "implied contracts" if you're still confused...)
Click to expand...


Here is a list of states where children implicitly enjoy and share a marriage contract:

1:

Better luck tomorrow


----------



## Katzndogz

Silhouette said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if you stopped obsessing about what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about what people do in the privacy of their bedroom.  It's about perverts imposing their sickness on others without the consent of those others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Especially when those "others" are children who are protected from adults as to their needs via the Infants Doctrine.  Ancient law.  And New York vs Ferber.
Click to expand...

The Infant Doctrine has nothing to do with marriage.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There is no contract,  express or implied, between children and parents*.   If there is a contract, what are the terms?   What is the consideration the child brings to establish the existence of the contract?  How is the contract breached by the parent?   What act constitutes a breach by the child?  Start out with love as a contractual condition is void as against public policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.  But there is a contract that children have unique rights to...."marriage".
Click to expand...


Says you. And you're the one that also offered us meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish such as 'children are married to their parents', 'children are parties to the marriage contract', 'the marriage of parents creates a minor contract for children', 'children are third party beneficiaries of marriage' and 'children are parties to an implied contract in marriage'.

*All of which you've abandoned.* You're desperately scrambling from term to term, claim to claim. Why? Because you don't know what you're talking about. 



> The contract is shared among adults and children of marriage.



Then show us any law or any court ruling who recognize children as a party to the marriage of their parents.

You can't.* Your only source is you. And you don't know what you're talking about.*



> And it's terms children needed and enjoyed up until last Summer were "a mother and father" bonded in a home from which the children there benefited from said.  Children don't "marry" their parents (yet, give the cult of LGBT enough time and warped precedents run wild..) and parents don't marry their children.  But by virtue of a man and woman marrying, the children who SHARE the contract get what they NEED ...a mom and dad..



All pseudo-legal gibberish. Oh, and you just contradicted yourself yet again:



			
				Silhoette said:
			
		

> The original contract created thousands of years ago did "marry" children to their parents.
> 
> Post 128
> Foundation of American Law at Risk: Obergefell 2015 A Reversible Ruling?



Your argument is a pile of pseudo-legal horseshit. A babbling ball of nonsense even you can't keep straight, as you keep contradicting yourself. The reality is far, far simpler than your elaborate, self contradictory nonsense:

You have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Skylar

Tipsycatlover said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if you stopped obsessing about what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about what people do in the privacy of their bedroom.  It's about perverts imposing their sickness on others without the consent of those others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Especially when those "others" are children who are protected from adults as to their needs via the Infants Doctrine.  Ancient law.  And New York vs Ferber.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Infant Doctrine has nothing to do with marriage.
Click to expand...


Nope. Not a thing. The Infancy Doctrine is a legal rip cord, allowing minors to exit contracts that are found to be egregious. Its business law. It has nothing to do with marriage nor has ever been applied to marriage.

Nor can Sil find a single example of the Infancy Doctrine being applied to marriage. Which is why every time she cites it.....her source is herself.

And she has no idea what she's talking about.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if you stopped obsessing about what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about what people do in the privacy of their bedroom.  It's about perverts imposing their sickness on others without the consent of those others.
Click to expand...


What do you have to 'consent' to for a gay couple to get married? 

Nothing. You're irrelevant. Enjoy.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to try again.   Children do not share in the marriage contract.   There is no contractual provision,  express or implied that a child can enforce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, children don't enforce necessity contracts: courts do.
Click to expand...



No court recognizes children as parties to their parents marriage. Not express, implied, ancient, mystic, metaphysical or chicken fried. You're quoting yourself as the law, yourself as your only source on your 'children are married to their parents' gibberish. And no court nor law recognizes any of it.

*Sil....what's the point of a 'legal' argument that isn't recognize by the law or any court?*



> And children do in fact implicitly share and enjoy the marriage contract...they were the reason it was created over a thousand years ago.  To cure the ills of children being without a mother and father.  You can blow hard until the cows come home but the facts surrounding infants and contract law are in the bedrock of the foundation of American law.  You've got a long hard road ahead of you convincing a court that children aren't in any way shape or form part of marriage; or that they 'never derived enjoyments or necessities from the marriage contract'.



There's no 'road', Sil. There's no 'judge to convince'. *Its just you, making shit up.*


----------



## sealybobo

Bob Blaylock said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if you stopped obsessing about what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about what people do in the privacy of their bedroom.  It's about perverts imposing their sickness on others without the consent of those others.
Click to expand...

First we would have to agree with your premise that it's a sickness


----------



## Skylar

sealybobo said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if you stopped obsessing about what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about what people do in the privacy of their bedroom.  It's about perverts imposing their sickness on others without the consent of those others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First we would have to agree with your premise that it's a sickness
Click to expand...


Ah, but remember.....according to Bob, Bob defines everything. The meaning of words, the sole and absolute definition of marriage, what the constitution means, when the constitution has been violated, good, evil, right, wrong, everything.

If you don't start with this assumption and follow it unquestioningly.....Bob really has nothing to offer. As that's his entire argument.


----------



## Inevitable

sealybobo said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if you stopped obsessing about what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about what people do in the privacy of their bedroom.  It's about perverts imposing their sickness on others without the consent of those others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First we would have to agree with your premise that it's a sickness
Click to expand...

That isn't his premise. It's a sickness or it's a choice depending on what position is politically applicable to justifying his prejudice that with the particular argument he it's making.

It's called a movable goalpost. It's the cornerstone of all intellectually dishonest discussion.


----------



## Silhouette

Inevitable said:


> That isn't his premise. It's a sickness or it's a choice depending on what position is politically applicable to justifying his prejudice that with the particular argument he it's making.
> 
> It's called a movable goalpost. It's the cornerstone of all intellectually dishonest discussion.



Translated: the troll "inevitable" is angry because I asked a question in the OP and poll which simply states a physical reality that around 90% of people agree with, and then I pointed out that the thing they feel is important is eradicated by gay marriage. 

He's unhappy and therefore calls that simple logical guide-service a "dishonest discussion".  He is even more angry because apparently it's a quite popular poll and shows that people feel that way left of center, center and right of center politically in a pivotal election year.

It's just too bad that reality interferes with your agenda.  But the only one engaged in being dishonest, "inevitable" is the one denying that 90% of people think it's important kids have both a mom and dad AND that gay marriage cannot provide that "important" commodity 100% of the time.  And it's a guarantee of failure to reach that necessity for the child's entire life.


----------



## Katzndogz

What you are missing is that the legal and medical communities know that forcing children into same sex parenting will damage them for life and they are okay with that.


----------



## Silhouette

Tipsycatlover said:


> What you are missing is that the legal and medical communities know that forcing children into same sex parenting will damage them for life and they are okay with that.



That hasn't been tested under oath in a court of law.  And if it has and people beholden to the non-scientific entity "The American Psychological Association" now run by a politically correct LGBT mouthpiece (all medical entities look to them on issue of psychology as a reflex) testified, then a re-hearing is in order, using child advocates in court (lawyers for children's unique share in the marriage contract) calling their opposing expert testimonies..


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't his premise. It's a sickness or it's a choice depending on what position is politically applicable to justifying his prejudice that with the particular argument he it's making.
> 
> It's called a movable goalpost. It's the cornerstone of all intellectually dishonest discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translated: the troll "inevitable" is angry because I asked a question in the OP and poll which simply states a physical reality that around 90% of people agree with, and then I pointed out that the thing they feel is important is eradicated by gay marriage.
Click to expand...


The poll never so much as mentions eradicating gay marriage. That's your personal compulsive obsession. 

As has been pointed out so many times before, you can't help by lie and misrepresent. We can look at the top of the page and *see* that you're lying. And you know we can. And still you can't help yourself.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are missing is that the legal and medical communities know that forcing children into same sex parenting will damage them for life and they are okay with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That hasn't been tested under oath in a court of law.
Click to expand...


The courts explicitly found that same sex marriage benefits children. You are quite simply ignoring the explicit findings of the Supreme Court and replacing it with your imagination.

That's not a legal argument.

Worse, the Supreme Court has found that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. You ignore this explicit finding of the Supreme Court, insisting that the right to marry is conditioned on children....because you say so.

That's not a legal argument either.



> And if it has and people beholden to the non-scientific entity "The American Psychological Association" now run by a politically correct LGBT mouthpiece (all medical entities look to them on issue of psychology as a reflex) testified, then a re-hearing is in order, using child advocates in court (lawyers for children's unique share in the marriage contract) calling their opposing expert testimonies..



No court nor law recognizes that children are parties to the 'marriage contract'. You made that up. And then insist that your imagination is the law.

That's not a legal argument either.


----------



## Katzndogz

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are missing is that the legal and medical communities know that forcing children into same sex parenting will damage them for life and they are okay with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That hasn't been tested under oath in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts explicitly found that same sex marriage benefits children. You are quite simply ignoring the explicit findings of the Supreme Court and replacing it with your imagination.
> 
> That's not a legal argument.
> 
> Worse, the Supreme Court has found that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. You ignore this explicit finding of the Supreme Court, insisting that the right to marry is conditioned on children....because you say so.
> 
> That's not a legal argument either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if it has and people beholden to the non-scientific entity "The American Psychological Association" now run by a politically correct LGBT mouthpiece (all medical entities look to them on issue of psychology as a reflex) testified, then a re-hearing is in order, using child advocates in court (lawyers for children's unique share in the marriage contract) calling their opposing expert testimonies..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No court nor law recognizes that children are parties to the 'marriage contract'. You made that up. And then insist that your imagination is the law.
> 
> That's not a legal argument either.
Click to expand...

The supreme Court found that same sex parents are a benefit to children because they are okay with raising damaged children into damaged adults.    It's inclusive and diverse.  Yes there is a price to be paid for all that inclusiveness and diversity.  The court is prepared to pay it.  They cannot force you to accept such diversity.  They can lie and persuade.  Ultimately it is up to the individual to accept or reject perversion for themselves and their own families.


----------



## Katzndogz

Silhouette said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't his premise. It's a sickness or it's a choice depending on what position is politically applicable to justifying his prejudice that with the particular argument he it's making.
> 
> It's called a movable goalpost. It's the cornerstone of all intellectually dishonest discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translated: the troll "inevitable" is angry because I asked a question in the OP and poll which simply states a physical reality that around 90% of people agree with, and then I pointed out that the thing they feel is important is eradicated by gay marriage.
> 
> He's unhappy and therefore calls that simple logical guide-service a "dishonest discussion".  He is even more angry because apparently it's a quite popular poll and shows that people feel that way left of center, center and right of center politically in a pivotal election year.
> 
> It's just too bad that reality interferes with your agenda.  But the only one engaged in being dishonest, "inevitable" is the one denying that 90% of people think it's important kids have both a mom and dad AND that gay marriage cannot provide that "important" commodity 100% of the time.  And it's a guarantee of failure to reach that necessity for the child's entire life.
Click to expand...

You still think that a mother and father are necessaries.  They aren't.   Mother's and father's walk out on their children every day.  Have you ever seen a child enforce contract rights against a parent that walked out?   The courts have never found a contract right to a parent.

The necessaries protected by the Infant Doctrine is food, clothing and water.   If children could avoid contracts for necessaries,  no one would ever provide those necessaries to children.  It doesn't mean either a mother or a father.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Tipsycatlover said:


> The supreme Court found that same sex parents are a benefit to children because they are okay with raising damaged children into damaged adults.    It's inclusive and diverse.  Yes there is a price to be paid for all that inclusiveness and diversity.  The court is prepared to pay it.  They cannot force you to accept such diversity.  They can lie and persuade.  Ultimately it is up to the individual to accept or reject perversion for themselves and their own families.



  Of course, the judges who made these decisions will not be the ones to bear the consequences of them.  Those who will pay the price are not being given a voice or a choice.


----------



## Silhouette

Bob Blaylock said:


> Of course, the judges who made these decisions will not be the ones to bear the consequences of them.  Those who will pay the price are not being given a voice or a choice.


Well this passion play isn't over yet Bob.  Get some conservatives in Offices this next year and then we'll see the legal challenges begin to march their way up to SCOTUS.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Well this passion play isn't over yet Bob. Get some conservatives in Offices this next year and then we'll see the legal challenges begin to march their way up to SCOTUS.



The next Preisdent will get to appoint 3 Justices once Kagan and Ginsburg get impeached. lol


----------



## ChrisL

Bob Blaylock said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if you stopped obsessing about what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about what people do in the privacy of their bedroom.  It's about perverts imposing their sickness on others without the consent of those others.
Click to expand...


Stay out of their bedrooms!


----------



## ChrisL

Bob Blaylock 

Just leave the homosexuals alone and let them live their lives the way they see fit.  They are not trying to make you gay, so don't worry so much about them and what they do.  You live your life, and let others live theirs as THEY want.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

ChrisL said:


> Bob Blaylock
> 
> Just leave the homosexuals alone and let them live their lives the way they see fit.  They are not trying to make you gay, so don't worry so much about them and what they do.  You live your life, and let others live theirs as THEY want.


  That principle has to go both ways.

  If I were in a profession fhat caters to weddings or orher events, then I need to be allowed not to have anything to do with a sick, immoral, homosexual mockery of a wedding.  That's my right, under the First Amendment, but the disgusting perverts insist that they have a “right” to force this sickness and madness on those of us who want no part of it; and thay this ersatz “right” supersedes the First Amendment.


----------



## ChrisL

Bob Blaylock said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock
> 
> Just leave the homosexuals alone and let them live their lives the way they see fit.  They are not trying to make you gay, so don't worry so much about them and what they do.  You live your life, and let others live theirs as THEY want.
> 
> 
> 
> That principle has to go both ways.
> 
> If I were in a profession fhat caters to weddings or orher events, then I need to be allowed not to have anything to do with a sick, immoral, homosexual mockery of a wedding.  That's my right, under the First Amendment, but the disgusting perverts insist that they have a “right” to force this sickness and madness on those of us who want no part of it; and thay this ersatz “right” supersedes the First Amendment.
Click to expand...


You cannot discriminate against ANYONE if you are going to open a public accommodation business.  Deal with it.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if you stopped obsessing about what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about what people do in the privacy of their bedroom.  It's about perverts imposing their sickness on others without the consent of those others.
Click to expand...


And exactly how is that happening? 

Who is making you watch anyone have sex?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to try again.   Children do not share in the marriage contract.   There is no contractual provision,  express or implied that a child can enforce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And children do in fact implicitly share and enjoy the marriage contract....)
Click to expand...


Then cite a court case in which that has happened.

Rather than just continuing to pull that claim out of your ass.


----------



## Syriusly

Tipsycatlover said:


> What you are missing is that the legal and medical communities know that forcing children into same sex parenting will damage them for life and they are okay with that.



What you are missing is facts.

A great example of anti-gay fan fiction though.


----------



## Syriusly

Tipsycatlover said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are missing is that the legal and medical communities know that forcing children into same sex parenting will damage them for life and they are okay with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That hasn't been tested under oath in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts explicitly found that same sex marriage benefits children. You are quite simply ignoring the explicit findings of the Supreme Court and replacing it with your imagination.
> 
> That's not a legal argument.
> 
> Worse, the Supreme Court has found that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. You ignore this explicit finding of the Supreme Court, insisting that the right to marry is conditioned on children....because you say so.
> 
> That's not a legal argument either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if it has and people beholden to the non-scientific entity "The American Psychological Association" now run by a politically correct LGBT mouthpiece (all medical entities look to them on issue of psychology as a reflex) testified, then a re-hearing is in order, using child advocates in court (lawyers for children's unique share in the marriage contract) calling their opposing expert testimonies..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No court nor law recognizes that children are parties to the 'marriage contract'. You made that up. And then insist that your imagination is the law.
> 
> That's not a legal argument either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The supreme Court found that same sex parents are a benefit to children because they are okay with raising damaged children into damaged adults.    It's inclusive and diverse.  Yes there is a price to be paid for all that inclusiveness and diversity.  The court is prepared to pay it.  They cannot force you to accept such diversity.  They can lie and persuade.  Ultimately it is up to the individual to accept or reject perversion for themselves and their own families.
Click to expand...


Speaking of lies- wow- you just told a doozy.

The Supreme Court found that marriage is a benefit to the children of same gender parents- because children are legally harmed when their parents are not allowed to marry.

The rest is just your usual anti-gay fan fiction.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock
> 
> Just leave the homosexuals alone and let them live their lives the way they see fit.  They are not trying to make you gay, so don't worry so much about them and what they do.  You live your life, and let others live theirs as THEY want.
> 
> 
> 
> That principle has to go both ways.
> 
> If I were in a profession fhat caters to weddings or orher events, then I need to be allowed not to have anything to do with a sick, immoral, homosexual mockery of a wedding.  That's my right, under the First Amendment, \.
Click to expand...


No more than it is your 'right' under the First Amendment to refuse to sell a cake to a mixed race couple because you think that miscegnation is sick and immoral.

You are 50 years late to outrage over Public Accommodation laws.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme Court found that same sex parents are a benefit to children because they are okay with raising damaged children into damaged adults.    It's inclusive and diverse.  Yes there is a price to be paid for all that inclusiveness and diversity.  The court is prepared to pay it.  They cannot force you to accept such diversity.  They can lie and persuade.  Ultimately it is up to the individual to accept or reject perversion for themselves and their own families.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the judges who made these decisions will not be the ones to bear the consequences of them.  Those who will pay the price are not being given a voice or a choice.
Click to expand...


'the consequences' being millions of same gender couples enjoying the same legal marriage as my wife and I enjoy.


----------



## bodecea

Bob Blaylock said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme Court found that same sex parents are a benefit to children because they are okay with raising damaged children into damaged adults.    It's inclusive and diverse.  Yes there is a price to be paid for all that inclusiveness and diversity.  The court is prepared to pay it.  They cannot force you to accept such diversity.  They can lie and persuade.  Ultimately it is up to the individual to accept or reject perversion for themselves and their own families.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the judges who made these decisions will not be the ones to bear the consequences of them.  Those who will pay the price are not being given a voice or a choice.
Click to expand...

What consequences are prices being paid for?


----------



## WorldWatcher

Bob Blaylock said:


> That principle has to go both ways.
> 
> If I were in a profession fhat caters to weddings or orher events, then I need to be allowed not to have anything to do with a sick, immoral, homosexual mockery of a wedding.  That's my right, under the First Amendment, but the disgusting perverts insist that they have a “right” to force this sickness and madness on those of us who want no part of it; and thay this ersatz “right” supersedes the First Amendment.



So  support the repeal of public accommodation laws which is where the problem exists, not with Civil Marriage.

Under current laws, in some states, Christian business owners cannot refuse service based on sexual orientation.

But if EVERY state homosexual business owners cannot refuse service based on religious views of the customer.


>>>>


----------



## Jarlaxle

Bob Blaylock said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if you stopped obsessing about what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about what people do in the privacy of their bedroom.  It's about perverts imposing their sickness on others without the consent of those others.
Click to expand...


How many gigs of lesbian porn do you have?


----------



## ChrisL

bodecea said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme Court found that same sex parents are a benefit to children because they are okay with raising damaged children into damaged adults.    It's inclusive and diverse.  Yes there is a price to be paid for all that inclusiveness and diversity.  The court is prepared to pay it.  They cannot force you to accept such diversity.  They can lie and persuade.  Ultimately it is up to the individual to accept or reject perversion for themselves and their own families.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the judges who made these decisions will not be the ones to bear the consequences of them.  Those who will pay the price are not being given a voice or a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What consequences are prices being paid for?
Click to expand...


It's because of religious beliefs.  Religious beliefs are divisive, very bigoted and exclusive (and by exclusive, I don't mean in a good way).


----------



## Inevitable

Silhouette said:


> Translated: the troll "inevitable" is angry because I asked a question in the OP and poll which simply states a physical reality that around 90% of people agree with, and then I pointed out that the thing they feel is important is eradicated by gay marriage.


Just calling people names isn't really a good way to argue.

And no the thing they feel is important isn't eradicated by same sex marriage.

Sorry. Nobody that is in a traditional marriage will leave it because same sex couple's can get married. That's absurd.



> He's unhappy and therefore calls that simple logical guide-service a "dishonest discussion".  He is even more angry because apparently it's a quite popular poll and shows that people feel that way left of center, center and right of center politically in a pivotal election year.
> 
> It's just too bad that reality interferes with your agenda.  But the only one engaged in being dishonest, "inevitable" is the one denying that 90% of people think it's important kids have both a mom and dad AND that gay marriage cannot provide that "important" commodity 100% of the time.  And it's a guarantee of failure to reach that necessity for the child's entire life.


That's funny. Reality interferes with my agenda?


----------



## Inevitable

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't his premise. It's a sickness or it's a choice depending on what position is politically applicable to justifying his prejudice that with the particular argument he it's making.
> 
> It's called a movable goalpost. It's the cornerstone of all intellectually dishonest discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translated: the troll "inevitable" is angry because I asked a question in the OP and poll which simply states a physical reality that around 90% of people agree with, and then I pointed out that the thing they feel is important is eradicated by gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The poll never so much as mentions eradicating gay marriage. That's your personal compulsive obsession.
> 
> As has been pointed out so many times before, you can't help by lie and misrepresent. We can look at the top of the page and *see* that you're lying. And you know we can. And still you can't help yourself.
Click to expand...

I am supposed to be the one who is upset, I didn't call anybody names.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

ChrisL said:


> You cannot discriminate against ANYONE if you are going to open a public accommodation business.  Deal with it.



  Where, in the First Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution, is government authorized to compel a citizen to waive any of his Constitutional rights—including freedoms of religion, expression, conscience, and association—as a condition of being allowed to make an honest living?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Syriusly said:


> 'the consequences' being millions of same gender couples enjoying the same legal marriage as my wife and I enjoy.



  That is nonsense.

  Marriage is only between a man and a woman, and it is not possible for two men or for two women to have the same kind of relationship that a man and a woman can have with one another.  The marital relationship is specifically dependent on the differences between a man and a woman, and how each completes the other.  You just cannot have that without both a man and a woman.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

bodecea said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the judges who made these decisions will not be the ones to bear the consequences of them.  Those who will pay the price are not being given a voice or a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> What consequences are prices being paid for?
Click to expand...


  Fatherless children, for one thing.  Children willfully and deliberately deprived of a father.

  Motherless children, for another.   Children willfully and deliberately deprived of a mother.

  The children that are being deliberately harmed and abused in this unconscionable manner are not being given any voice or representation.  They are being thrown under the bus, their needs completely disregarded, in order to cater to immoral perverts.


----------



## mdk

Bob Blaylock said:


> The marital relationship is specifically dependent on the differences between a man and a woman, and how each completes the other.



Complete and utter bullshit.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

ChrisL said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme Court found that same sex parents are a benefit to children because they are okay with raising damaged children into damaged adults.    It's inclusive and diverse.  Yes there is a price to be paid for all that inclusiveness and diversity.  The court is prepared to pay it.  They cannot force you to accept such diversity.  They can lie and persuade.  Ultimately it is up to the individual to accept or reject perversion for themselves and their own families.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the judges who made these decisions will not be the ones to bear the consequences of them.  Those who will pay the price are not being given a voice or a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What consequences are prices being paid for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's because of religious beliefs.  Religious beliefs are divisive, very bigoted and exclusive (and by exclusive, I don't mean in a good way).
Click to expand...


  Religious beliefs are explicitly protected under the First Amendment.  Being a sick, immoral, disgusting pervert is not, nor is forcing others who want no part of these perversions to participate in, celebrate, support, or otherwise be affected by them.


----------



## Dekster

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'the consequences' being millions of same gender couples enjoying the same legal marriage as my wife and I enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is nonsense.
> 
> Marriage is only between a man and a woman, and it is not possible for two men or for two women to have the same kind of relationship that a man and a woman can have with one another.  The marital relationship is specifically dependent on the differences between a man and a woman, and how each completes the other.  You just cannot have that without both a man and a woman.
Click to expand...



Hardly true at all.  Society is less likely to get a future taxpayer or two out of the same sex relationships, but otherwise, a same sex couple can have the same sort of relationship as any other couple except that more people will question the legitimacy of that emotional commitment than they will that of an opposite sex couple.


----------



## Silhouette

Dekster said:


> Society is less likely to get a future taxpayer or two out of the same sex relationships, but otherwise, a same sex couple can have the same sort of relationship as any other couple except that more people will question the legitimacy of that emotional commitment than they will that of an opposite sex couple.



This isn't about taxpayers or the adults carrying on with each other.  This is about what children got out of marriage for over a thousand years: a guaranteed mother and father.  That guarantee from marriage was revoked.  The models were tampered with.  Adults don't need a piece of paper for their relationship.  And if they're just getting married for tax purposes, that defies the commitment.  Children enjoyed benefits of the marriage contract until last Summer.  That mistrial will be reviewed again.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Children enjoyed benefits of the marriage contract until last Summer. That mistrial will be reviewed again.



Children are not a part of a marriage contract and a trial has to occur first before there can be a mistrial.


----------



## Inevitable

Silhouette said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are missing is that the legal and medical communities know that forcing children into same sex parenting will damage them for life and they are okay with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That hasn't been tested under oath in a court of law.  And if it has and people beholden to the non-scientific entity "The American Psychological Association" now run by a politically correct LGBT mouthpiece (all medical entities look to them on issue of psychology as a reflex) testified, then a re-hearing is in order, using child advocates in court (lawyers for children's unique share in the marriage contract) calling their opposing expert testimonies..
Click to expand...

Yes everybody that doesn't agree with your political views is a mouthpiece or part of some conspiracy.

Riiiiiiiiight


----------



## Dekster

Silhouette said:


> Dekster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Society is less likely to get a future taxpayer or two out of the same sex relationships, but otherwise, a same sex couple can have the same sort of relationship as any other couple except that more people will question the legitimacy of that emotional commitment than they will that of an opposite sex couple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about taxpayers or the adults carrying on with each other.  This is about what children got out of marriage for over a thousand years: a guaranteed mother and father.  That guarantee from marriage was revoked.  The models were tampered with.  Adults don't need a piece of paper for their relationship.  And if they're just getting married for tax purposes, that defies the commitment.  Children enjoyed benefits of the marriage contract until last Summer.  That mistrial will be reviewed again.
Click to expand...

 
A very opportunistic version of what children lives were like for most of those 1000 years.  Unless you were the first born son, you were an involuntary servant who had no payoff and if you were female, you would be lucky if you weren't married off to some old man as soon as you turned 13.


----------



## Skylar

Tipsycatlover said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are missing is that the legal and medical communities know that forcing children into same sex parenting will damage them for life and they are okay with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That hasn't been tested under oath in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts explicitly found that same sex marriage benefits children. You are quite simply ignoring the explicit findings of the Supreme Court and replacing it with your imagination.
> 
> That's not a legal argument.
> 
> Worse, the Supreme Court has found that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. You ignore this explicit finding of the Supreme Court, insisting that the right to marry is conditioned on children....because you say so.
> 
> That's not a legal argument either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if it has and people beholden to the non-scientific entity "The American Psychological Association" now run by a politically correct LGBT mouthpiece (all medical entities look to them on issue of psychology as a reflex) testified, then a re-hearing is in order, using child advocates in court (lawyers for children's unique share in the marriage contract) calling their opposing expert testimonies..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No court nor law recognizes that children are parties to the 'marriage contract'. You made that up. And then insist that your imagination is the law.
> 
> That's not a legal argument either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The supreme Court found that same sex parents are a benefit to children because they are okay with raising damaged children into damaged adults.    It's inclusive and diverse.  Yes there is a price to be paid for all that inclusiveness and diversity.  The court is prepared to pay it.  They cannot force you to accept such diversity.  They can lie and persuade.  Ultimately it is up to the individual to accept or reject perversion for themselves and their own families.
Click to expand...


It was more because everyone agreed that same sex couples can form loving, supportive families. Even those who opposed same sex marriage. 



			
				Obergefell v. Hodges said:
			
		

> As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples. See Brief for Gary J. Gates as Amicus Curiae 4. Most States have allowed gays and lesbians to adopt, either as individuals or as couples, and many adopted and foster children have same-sex parents, see id., at 5. This provides powerful confirmation from the law itself that gays and lesbians can create loving, supportive families.



You don't have to accept that the court is correct or that same sex marriage is valid. The law does. And Sil is pretending hers is a legal argument. Explicit contradiction by the Supreme Court and an utter lack of any court or law recognizing any of her pseudo-legal gibberish demonstrates she's not. 

She's never presented a legal argument. She's presented her imagination and pretended it was law.

No one, no court, no judge is obligated to pretend with her.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme Court found that same sex parents are a benefit to children because they are okay with raising damaged children into damaged adults.    It's inclusive and diverse.  Yes there is a price to be paid for all that inclusiveness and diversity.  The court is prepared to pay it.  They cannot force you to accept such diversity.  They can lie and persuade.  Ultimately it is up to the individual to accept or reject perversion for themselves and their own families.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the judges who made these decisions will not be the ones to bear the consequences of them.  Those who will pay the price are not being given a voice or a choice.
Click to expand...


The Obergefell ruling is irrelevant to same sex parenting.

Acknowledge gay marriage, deny marriage to gays.....*and same sex parents are still same sex parents. *The only difference as far as the children are concerned is that recognizing same sex marriage benefits the children. Denying same sex marriage to their parents hurts those children.

That's the absurdity of the entire 'deny same sex marriage for the children' nonsense. Denying same sex marriage doesn't 'remedy' a single thing you're complaining about. Its not like if you deny marriage to same sex parents they magically become opposite sex parents. All you do is guarantee their children never have married parents.

Which hurts children by the hundreds of thousands and help none.

Oh, and the Supreme Court already found that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them:



			
				Obergefell v. Hodges said:
			
		

> This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.



So even hypothetically, 'deny same sex marriage for the children' is a nonsense argument.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'the consequences' being millions of same gender couples enjoying the same legal marriage as my wife and I enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is nonsense.
> 
> Marriage is only between a man and a woman, and it is not possible for two men or for two women to have the same kind of relationship that a man and a woman can have with one another.  The marital relationship is specifically dependent on the differences between a man and a woman, and how each completes the other.  You just cannot have that without both a man and a woman.
Click to expand...


Except none of that is actually true. Who says that marriage is only between one man and one woman? You citing your subjective opinion.

You're confusing your personal opinion with an objective fact. And they aren't the same thing.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Dekster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Society is less likely to get a future taxpayer or two out of the same sex relationships, but otherwise, a same sex couple can have the same sort of relationship as any other couple except that more people will question the legitimacy of that emotional commitment than they will that of an opposite sex couple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about taxpayers or the adults carrying on with each other.  This is about what children got out of marriage for over a thousand years: a guaranteed mother and father.
Click to expand...


Pure delusional fiction. Marriage a thousand years ago was about property. A ma owned his wife. A man owned his children. Children were property, typically used for manual labor on farms.

You're making up this fictionalized fantasy about marriage.......based on jack shit. Just your imagination. And marriage isn't defined by your imagination.



> That guarantee from marriage was revoked.  The models were tampered with.  Adults don't need a piece of paper for their relationship.  And if they're just getting married for tax purposes, that defies the commitment.  Children enjoyed benefits of the marriage contract until last Summer.  That mistrial will be reviewed again.



There was no 'guarantee'. You imagined it. Children aren't a party to the marriage of their parents. You imagined it. Children aren't 'third party beneficiaries' of the marriage of their parents. You imagined that too. 

And your imagination is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. And thus void.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme Court found that same sex parents are a benefit to children because they are okay with raising damaged children into damaged adults.    It's inclusive and diverse.  Yes there is a price to be paid for all that inclusiveness and diversity.  The court is prepared to pay it.  They cannot force you to accept such diversity.  They can lie and persuade.  Ultimately it is up to the individual to accept or reject perversion for themselves and their own families.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the judges who made these decisions will not be the ones to bear the consequences of them.  Those who will pay the price are not being given a voice or a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What consequences are prices being paid for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's because of religious beliefs.  Religious beliefs are divisive, very bigoted and exclusive (and by exclusive, I don't mean in a good way).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious beliefs are explicitly protected under the First Amendment.  Being a sick, immoral, disgusting pervert is not, nor is forcing others who want no part of these perversions to participate in, celebrate, support, or otherwise be affected by them.
Click to expand...

 Bob, you can believe whatever you want. What you can't do is force your religion onto other people  against their will. And your religion doesn't define marriage for anyone who doesn't believe what yo do. And certainly not what marriage is under the law.

Get used to the idea.


----------



## Inevitable

Bob Blaylock said:


> That principle has to go both ways.


It absolutely does. Nobody tells you how to live. And if they do, I'd defend you against them.



> If I were in a profession fhat caters to weddings or orher events, then I need to be allowed not to have anything to do with a sick, immoral, homosexual mockery of a wedding.


You are allowed just that. Tell anybody that you don't want to serve you have the right to refuse service to anybody for any reason.

You don't owe anybody a reason. Frankly it's of no importance to them your reason. Now if you open your mouth and start preaching to them like the Kleins did, you give them fodder for complaints.

You are entitled to your opinion. You aren't entitled to preach to a captive audience.



> That's my right, under the First Amendment, but the disgusting perverts insist that they have a “right” to force this sickness and madness on those of us who want no part of it; and thay this ersatz “right” supersedes the First Amendment.


When has anybody forced you to have a same sex marriage?


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot discriminate against ANYONE if you are going to open a public accommodation business.  Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where, in the First Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution, is government authorized to compel a citizen to waive any of his Constitutional rights—including freedoms of religion, expression, conscience, and association—as a condition of being allowed to make an honest living?
Click to expand...


And who said that a citizen is compelled to waive his constitutional right?

Again, Bob.....you 'insisting it must be so because you say it is' doesn't establish a constitutional violation. As you citing you is legally and constitutionally meaningless.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Skylar said:


> Acknowledge gay marriage, deny marriage to gays.....*and same sex parents are still same sex parents. *The only difference as far as the children are concerned is that recognizing same sex marriage benefits the children. Denying same sex marriage to their parents hurts those children.



  Willfully depriving children of a mother or of a father, is what hurts them.  Giving legal blessing to this deprivation does nothing to mitigate the harm that it causes.

  You cannot, in any honestly, defend this unnatural and harmful arrangement, offer a fraudulent mockery of a “marriage” in place of the real thing, and then claim that you are in any way concerned about the well-being of the children who are caught up in this whole mess.  Yours is the position that is harmful to children.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Skylar said:


> Bob, you can believe whatever you want. What you can't do is force your religion onto other people  against their will.



  Your side certainly claims the “right” to force its sick perversions on people who want no part of it, and on children who are given no say at all.

  Why is it OK to force immorality on others, but not to force morality?


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acknowledge gay marriage, deny marriage to gays.....*and same sex parents are still same sex parents. *The only difference as far as the children are concerned is that recognizing same sex marriage benefits the children. Denying same sex marriage to their parents hurts those children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Willfully depriving children of a mother or of a father, is what hurts them.  Giving legal blessing to this deprivation does nothing to mitigate the harm that it causes.
Click to expand...


Then you admit that same sex marriage has nothing to do with this. As what you're railing against is same sex parenting. And regardless of if we recognize same sex marriage or deny it, same sex parents are same sex parents.



> You cannot, in any honestly, defend this unnatural and harmful arrangement, offer a fraudulent mockery of a “marriage” in place of the real thing, and then claim that you are in any way concerned about the well-being of the children who are caught up in this whole mess.  Yours is the position that is harmful to children.



Bob, you don't define 'honesty'. Making your insistence that unless I agree with you I'm not 'honest' more fallacious nonsense. Really, is there anything to you but the same Begging the Question fallacy?

And even you can't make your steaming rhetorical pile of an argument work. As it breaks on the same cartoon simple question:

*How does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?*

Be _honest_. Because the courts have gone into elaborate detail all the harm that denying marriage to same sex parents can cause their kids.



			
				Windsor v. US said:
			
		

> And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.....
> 
> ....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.



Humiliation, damage to the integrity and closeness of their own family, damage to their daily lives, financial harm, increased healthcare costs, denial of intregal part of family security. All these harms you pour out gladly onto the children of same sex couples by denying their parents marriage.

In exchange for what benefits?


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bob, you can believe whatever you want. What you can't do is force your religion onto other people  against their will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your side certainly claims the “right” to force its sick perversions on people who want no part of it, and on children who are given no say at all.
Click to expand...


There's nothing 'sick' or 'perverted' in getting married or raising kids. Nor is there anything 'sick' or 'perverted' in buying a cake.

Try again. This time without the melodramatic hysterics. 



> Why is it OK to force immorality on others, but not to force morality?



Morality according to who, Bob?  Remember, while *you* may believe you define all morality, you're nobody to the rest of us. All of your arguments, all of your claims *require* that we accept you as the sole authoritative arbiter of all morality, good, evil, the meaning of any word, all legal definitions, the constitution, violations of the constitution, and the sole and absolute definition of marriage.

And you're not. 

Leaving you with your subjective opinion which you keep desperately trying to convince us is objective fact. And subjective isn't objective.

Is there anything to you, anything at all.....beyond this same stupid Begging the Question fallacy?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Skylar said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot discriminate against ANYONE if you are going to open a public accommodation business.  Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where, in the First Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution, is government authorized to compel a citizen to waive any of his Constitutional rights—including freedoms of religion, expression, conscience, and association—as a condition of being allowed to make an honest living?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who said that a citizen is compelled to waive his constitutional right?
Click to expand...


  Freedom of expression, (which necessarily means freedom not to express that which I find disagreeable), explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment.  Nothing in the Constitution allows me to be denied this right, if I choose to go into a business that involves creating expressive artistic works (such as custom cakes).

  Freedom of association, strongly implied in the First Amendment, means I can choose with whom I will or will not associate.  Nothing in the Constitution says that I can be denied this right if I choose to run a business.

  As originally enacted and applied, the 1964 Civil Rights Act could stand the test of “strict scrutiny”, which ought always to be required when an explicit Constitutional right is at stake.  As you're trying to apply it now, it doesn't come anywhere close.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot discriminate against ANYONE if you are going to open a public accommodation business.  Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where, in the First Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution, is government authorized to compel a citizen to waive any of his Constitutional rights—including freedoms of religion, expression, conscience, and association—as a condition of being allowed to make an honest living?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who said that a citizen is compelled to waive his constitutional right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom of expression, (which necessarily means freedom not to express that which I find disagreeable), explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment.  Nothing in the Constitution allows me to be denied this right, if I choose to go into a business that involves creating expressive artistic works (such as custom cakes).
Click to expand...


And who said that a citizen is compelled to waive his constitutional right?

PA laws have long since been established as constitutional. As the regulation of intrastate commerce is an undisputed power of the States. And there's no question that selling cakes to the public is commerce. So who are you quoting?

Again, Bob......*you're citing yourself. *Insisting that if YOU believe a constitutional right has been violated, it has been. But you're nobody. And your subjective opinion has no legal or constitutional relevance.

So beyond quoting yourself, what have you got? As being Christian doesn't exempt you from general laws, no matter what you believe about Christian Sharia.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

ChrisL said:


> You cannot discriminate against ANYONE if you are going to open a public accommodation business.  Deal with it.



  If the Westboro Baptist Church wanted a custom cake for one of its evens, decorated with its slogan _“GOD HATES FAGS!”_, should a baker be compelled to produce that cake,who finds that content or its purpose morally repugnant?  What if a Ku Klux Klan organization wants a KKK-themed cake, with images of burning crosses and black people being lynched from trees?  Or a neo-Nazi organization wanting a cake that praises Hitler and his “Final Solution”?

  Will you apply your statement equally to those, and say that a baker has no right to _“discriminate”_ against those prospective customers?


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot discriminate against ANYONE if you are going to open a public accommodation business.  Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Westboro Baptist Church wanted a custom cake for one of its evens, decorated with its slogan _“GOD HATES FAGS!”_, should a baker be compelled to produce that cake,who finds that content or its purpose morally repugnant?  What if a Ku Klux Klan organization wants a KKK-themed cake, with images of burning crosses and black people being lynched from trees?  Or a neo-Nazi organization wanting a cake that praises Hitler and his “Final Solution”?
> 
> Will you apply your statement equally to those, and say that a baker has no right to _“discriminate”_ against those prospective customers?
Click to expand...


What speech did the folks who ordered a cake at 'Sweet Cakes' demand? Specifically.

None. Making your 'slogan' analogy nonsense. They simply ordered a cake. And were denied due to their sexual orientation. Which is explicitly forbidden by Oregon PA laws.

*Christians don't get to ignore general laws that they don't like.* What you're calling for is a religious based Sovereign Citizenship that makes all US law voluntary and subordinate to Christianity.

Um, no. No religion has that authority. As its a wildly stupid idea:



			
				Employment Division v. Smith said:
			
		

> It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.... To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is "compelling"–permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, "to become a law unto himself,"–contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense. To adopt a true "compelling interest" requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy.



And this from one of the most conservative justices on the bench, Justice Scalia.

Your religious belief does not exempt you from the law. You still have to abide PA laws, you still have to pay taxes, and you're still subject to civil penalties if you violate the minimum codes of conduct for business in your state.

As it should be.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Skylar said:


> *Christians don't get to ignore general laws that they don't like.* What you're calling for is a religious based Sovereign Citizenship that makes all US law voluntary and subordinate to Christianity.



  The First Amendment is the law—part of the highest law in this nation.  All I am calling for is this law to be obeyed.  If you don't like it, then try to get your elected misrepresentatives to begin the process of ratifying a new amendment to overturn the First Amendment.

  Government doesn't (or at least shouldn't) get to ignore parts of the Constitution that it does not like.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> What speech did the folks who ordered a cake at 'Sweet Cakes' demand? Specifically.
> 
> None. Making your 'slogan' analogy nonsense. *They simply ordered a cake*. And were denied due to their sexual orientation. Which is explicitly forbidden by Oregon PA laws...



No, what they ordered was a GAY WEDDING cake.  And that's the difference in Jude 1 that is forbidden.  An individual gay person or three of them just coming in to order food or a birthday cake isn't promoting the GAY CULTURE into the core of society.  "GAY WEDDINGS" ARE promoting that culture into the heart of society.  The individual gay a Christian is to reach out to "making a difference".  But for the spread of their cult into our culture using the hub of culture itself, marriage, is ABSOLUTELY AND CLEARLY FORBIDDEN to Christians.

So *a cake with the knowledge imparted to a Christian that it is to be for a "gay wedding" is where the Christian has "been informed of the intent of the cake" and as such MUST decline or spend an eternity in the fires of hell burning their soul.*

And as for the reverse analogy, let's say a KKK group comes into a black baker's shop and tells the baker "I want a cake made for our annual ******-hating ceremony".  And when the baker refuses, the KKK has a "right" to sue him.  After all, the KKK member has a protected 1st Amendment right to hate whoever he wants.  Who is the baker to deny him the cake for that ceremony? 

Or let's say Muslim wants to order a cake from a veteran baker with a symbol of the American flag burning for the Muslim's "Damned infidel" celebration that week.  Should the veteran be required to ice on top of a cake an image of the flag he fought for and lost limbs for on fire?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> What speech did the folks who ordered a cake at 'Sweet Cakes' demand? Specifically.
> 
> None. Making your 'slogan' analogy nonsense. *They simply ordered a cake*. And were denied due to their sexual orientation. Which is explicitly forbidden by Oregon PA laws...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what they ordered was a GAY WEDDING cake.  And that's the difference in Jude 1 that is forbidden.
Click to expand...


Except that it isn't. As Jude 1 mentions neither gay weddings or cakes.



> .   An individual gay person or three of them just coming in to order food or a birthday cake isn't promoting the GAY CULTURE into the core of society.  "GAY WEDDINGS" ARE promoting that culture into the heart of society.  The individual gay a Christian is to reach out to "making a difference".  But for the spread of their cult into our culture using the hub of culture itself, marriage, is ABSOLUTELY AND CLEARLY FORBIDDEN to Christians.



Sil, take a breath. Its just cake. And while cake is pretty amazing, its not quite that amazing.



> So *a cake with the knowledge imparted to a Christian that it is to be for a "gay wedding" is where the Christian has "been informed of the intent of the cake" and as such MUST decline or spend an eternity in the fires of hell burning their soul.*



If baking a cake will condemn your immortal soul to eternal damnation then cake backing probably isn't the best profession for you.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Christians don't get to ignore general laws that they don't like.* What you're calling for is a religious based Sovereign Citizenship that makes all US law voluntary and subordinate to Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment is the law—part of the highest law in this nation.
Click to expand...


And who says that the 1st amendment was violated?

Sorry, Bob.....but your Begging the Question fallacy isn't a constitutional violation. As your subjective opinion is legally and constitutionally meaningless.

No constitutional violation has ever been found in anything you're discussing. Not PA laws. Not the application of general law to Christians. None of it. Its just you...citing you.

And you're nobody. 



> All I am calling for is this law to be obeyed.



No, you're calling for Christians to be exempted from any general law that they don't agree with. For Christianity to be placed supreme above all civil law.

*No. *



			
				Smith v. Employment Division said:
			
		

> It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.... To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is "compelling"–permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, "to become a law unto himself,"–contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense. To adopt a true "compelling interest" requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy.



And this from one of the most conservative justices on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia.

Christians are subject to general law just like everyone else. They aren't special. They aren't exempt.

Get used to the idea.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> And *who says* that the 1st amendment was violated?



One of LGBT payroll blogger(s?) Skylar & mdk's favorite tricks is to use time-tense to fool.  "Who says" (present tense) or "who said" (past tense) knowing this thread weighs heavily on potential future-tense lawsuits' outcomes...like the Klein's or the ones climbing up from Tennessee...

The proper way to frame that question would be "What will be/might be said about the 1st Amendment being violated?"  Because as Skylar well knows, the question can't be answered in the present or past tense since the case is currently still pending appeals & inevitably, a Decision...

For example, I would more accurately ask, "how will the fact that 90% of all people believing a mother and father are important to a child, across every political spectrum, affect how the Justices might rule on looming challenges to Obergefell massing up as we speak?"


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> "Who says" (present tense) or "who said" (past tense) knowing this thread weighs heavily on potential future-tense lawsuits' outcomes...




Sil, your threads, this one or the dozens and dozens of others will have zero, null, nada, zippo, impact on any lawsuit pertaining ti same-sex couples being able to Civilly Marry, whether same-sex couples can adopt, or whether they can be included in Public Accommodation laws.


>>>>


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And *who says* that the 1st amendment was violated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of LGBT payroll blogger(s?) Skylar & mdk's favorite tricks is to use time-tense to fool.  "Who says" (present tense) or "who said" (past tense) knowing this thread weighs heavily on potential future-tense lawsuits' outcomes...like the Klein's or the ones climbing up from Tennessee...
> 
> The proper way to frame that question would be "What will be/might be said about the 1st Amendment being violated?"  Because as Skylar well knows, the question can't be answered in the present or past tense since the case is currently still pending appeals & inevitably, a Decision...
> 
> For example, I would more accurately ask, "how will the fact that 90% of all people believing a mother and father are important to a child, across every political spectrum, affect how the Justices might rule on looming challenges to Obergefell massing up as we speak?"
Click to expand...


Yes, I am sure the Justices will use this thread as evidence as soon as they finishing reading The Prince's Trust. lol

Also, I am not paid to post here. Watching you twist in the wind and attempt to remain relevant is its own reward.


----------



## bodecea

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> What speech did the folks who ordered a cake at 'Sweet Cakes' demand? Specifically.
> 
> None. Making your 'slogan' analogy nonsense. *They simply ordered a cake*. And were denied due to their sexual orientation. Which is explicitly forbidden by Oregon PA laws...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what they ordered was a GAY WEDDING cake.  And that's the difference in Jude 1 that is forbidden.  An individual gay person or three of them just coming in to order food or a birthday cake isn't promoting the GAY CULTURE into the core of society.  "GAY WEDDINGS" ARE promoting that culture into the heart of society.  The individual gay a Christian is to reach out to "making a difference".  But for the spread of their cult into our culture using the hub of culture itself, marriage, is ABSOLUTELY AND CLEARLY FORBIDDEN to Christians.
> 
> So *a cake with the knowledge imparted to a Christian that it is to be for a "gay wedding" is where the Christian has "been informed of the intent of the cake" and as such MUST decline or spend an eternity in the fires of hell burning their soul.*
> 
> And as for the reverse analogy, let's say a KKK group comes into a black baker's shop and tells the baker "I want a cake made for our annual ******-hating ceremony".  And when the baker refuses, the KKK has a "right" to sue him.  After all, the KKK member has a protected 1st Amendment right to hate whoever he wants.  Who is the baker to deny him the cake for that ceremony?
> 
> Or let's say Muslim wants to order a cake from a veteran baker with a symbol of the American flag burning for the Muslim's "Damned infidel" celebration that week.  Should the veteran be required to ice on top of a cake an image of the flag he fought for and lost limbs for on fire?
Click to expand...

They ordered a cake.   The owner's husband found out the cake was for a gay wedding and refused them service.

It's not about what's on the cake....that's a speech issue.   It's simply making a cake....and the husband being a jack ass.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And *who says* that the 1st amendment was violated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of LGBT payroll blogger(s?) Skylar & mdk's favorite tricks is to use time-tense to fool.  "Who says" (present tense) or "who said" (past tense) knowing this thread weighs heavily on potential future-tense lawsuits' outcomes...like the Klein's or the ones climbing up from Tennessee...
Click to expand...


_Another _conspiracy? Didn't you learn your lesson with your spectacular failures with the 'Gays control the pope' and 'Gallup was infiltrated by homosexuals' batshit?

And the Supreme Court has denied cert on *every* of the faux 'religious liberty' cases surrounding gay marriage. There's zero indication that the Supreme Court has the slightest interest in the Klein's case. Every time someone has been found guilty of violating state PA laws in denying services to gays or lesbians.....the SCOTUS has denied cert.



> The proper way to frame that question would be "What will be/might be said about the 1st Amendment being violated?"  Because as Skylar well knows, the question can't be answered in the present or past tense since the case is currently still pending appeals & inevitably, a Decision...


Remember 'Elaine's Photography' where the owners refused to take pictures at a gay wedding? She lost all the way to the New Mexico Supreme Court which found no violation of her 1st amendment rights. *With the SCOTUS denying cert. *

"Masterpiece Bakery" in Colorado made the same claim. They lost all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court with no violation of the owners 1st amendment rights. *The SCOTUS denied cert there too. 
*
Remember Kim Davis, the county clerk that refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. She lost all the way to the federal courts with no violation of her 1st amendment rights ever found. *The SCOTUS denied Kim Davis' petition for cert too. *

But this time, after 3 explicit rejections of your predictions, the SCOTUS is going to not only grant cert, but rule in your favor?

*Laughing...Sil, this is why your every legal prediction has been failure. *Not one of your predictions has ever been accurate. And with the SCOTUS denying cert *every* time this issue has been before them, you insist that you *know* what they're going to do?

Um, you never have before. Your record of failure in predicting the USSC is perfect. As you well know. And now so does everyone else.


----------



## Katzndogz

We need better supreme Court justices.


----------



## Skylar

Tipsycatlover said:


> We need better supreme Court justices.



With Scalia's replacement, we will.


----------



## mdk

Supreme Court reverses Alabama court that denied lesbian woman's adoption

A unanimous decision from the court.


----------



## Skylar

mdk said:


> Supreme Court reverses Alabama court that denied lesbian woman's adoption
> 
> A unanimous decision from the court.



Unanimous. 

Damn. Apparently they've never read the Prince's Trust study. 

Laughing.......right, Sil?


----------



## Katzndogz

Skylar said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need better supreme Court justices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With Scalia's replacement, we will.
Click to expand...

We need to replace Ginsberg and the two lezzies, Kagan and Sotomayor.  

Normalcy should by the number one qualification.


----------



## mdk

Skylar said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court reverses Alabama court that denied lesbian woman's adoption
> 
> A unanimous decision from the court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unanimous.
> 
> Damn. Apparently they've never read the Prince's Trust study.
> 
> Laughing.......right, Sil?
Click to expand...


Roberts, Alito, and, Thomas must be members of the LGBT cult that Sil keeps gassing on about. lol


----------



## Skylar

Tipsycatlover said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need better supreme Court justices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With Scalia's replacement, we will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to replace Ginsberg and the two lezzies, Kagan and Sotomayor.
> 
> Normalcy should by the number one qualification.
Click to expand...


So no left handed judges?


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Supreme Court reverses Alabama court that denied lesbian woman's adoption
> 
> A unanimous decision from the court.


That was a case where a woman had natural children that a former lesbian partner (are you with me still?...poor kids...) wanted rights to as adopted or some such.

This is more a case it seems of adult familiarity with a child already in their midst than some stranger going to an adoption agency where both parents of the children are unknown or not part of the potentially adoptive couple..

I know the cult of LGBT is going to try its damndest to build a legal bridge between the "lesbians can have natural kids and adopt them in partnership" to "any gays can come and blindly adopt kids from catholic orphanages"...but there are lawyers working on this problem as we speak.  And, it doesn't change that 90% of people believe a child having both a mother and father in their life is important...


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court reverses Alabama court that denied lesbian woman's adoption
> 
> A unanimous decision from the court.
> 
> 
> 
> That was a case where a woman had natural children that a former lesbian partner (are you with me still?...poor kids...) wanted rights to as adopted or some such.
> 
> This is more a case it seems of adult familiarity with a child already in their midst than some stranger going to an adoption agency where both parents of the children are unknown or not part of the potentially adoptive couple..
Click to expand...


But Sil....what about your pseudo-legal horseshit about 'same sex parenting being child abuse' and how the court was going to overturn Obergefell to prevent it?

*They just ruled unanimously to *preserve* what you insist they will oppose. *

Have you ever gotten *any* legal prediction right? Any at all?


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court reverses Alabama court that denied lesbian woman's adoption
> 
> A unanimous decision from the court.
> 
> 
> 
> That was a case where a woman had natural children that a former lesbian partner (are you with me still?...poor kids...) wanted rights to as adopted or some such.
> 
> This is more a case it seems of adult familiarity with a child already in their midst than some stranger going to an adoption agency where both parents of the children are unknown or not part of the potentially adoptive couple..
> 
> I know the cult of LGBT is going to try its damndest to build a legal bridge between the "lesbians can have natural kids and adopt them in partnership" to "any gays can come and blindly adopt kids from catholic orphanages"...but there are lawyers working on this problem as we speak.  And, it doesn't change that 90% of people believe a child having both a mother and father in their life is important...
Click to expand...


No, this case was about Alabama ignoring full faith and credit of another state b/c gays are icky. All 8 of Justices told them they couldn't. 


A private Cathloic adoption agency can place children with any person they see fit.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> That was a case where a woman had natural children that a former lesbian partner (are you with me still?...poor kids...) wanted rights to as adopted or some such.
> 
> This is more a case it seems of adult familiarity with a child already in their midst than some stranger going to an adoption agency where both parents of the children are unknown or not part of the potentially adoptive couple..
> 
> I know the cult of LGBT is going to try its damndest to build a legal bridge between the "lesbians can have natural kids and adopt them in partnership" to "any gays can come and blindly adopt kids from catholic orphanages"...but there are lawyers working on this problem as we speak.  And, it doesn't change that 90% of people believe a child having both a mother and father in their life is important...




Excuse me...

But under your logic that you claim about New York v. Ferber, this adoption would have been voided and the Supreme Court would have surely ruled that the other state did not have to recognize the adoption.

All because protecting the children would have voided the adoption.


*>>>>*


----------



## Skylar

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a case where a woman had natural children that a former lesbian partner (are you with me still?...poor kids...) wanted rights to as adopted or some such.
> 
> This is more a case it seems of adult familiarity with a child already in their midst than some stranger going to an adoption agency where both parents of the children are unknown or not part of the potentially adoptive couple..
> 
> I know the cult of LGBT is going to try its damndest to build a legal bridge between the "lesbians can have natural kids and adopt them in partnership" to "any gays can come and blindly adopt kids from catholic orphanages"...but there are lawyers working on this problem as we speak.  And, it doesn't change that 90% of people believe a child having both a mother and father in their life is important...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me...
> 
> But under your logic that you claim about New York v. Ferber, this adoption would have been voided and the Supreme Court would have surely ruled that the other state did not have to recognize the adoption.
> 
> All because protecting the children would have voided the adoption.
> 
> 
> *>>>>*
Click to expand...


Her logic of Ferber would have been voided when the Supreme Court found that same sex marriage benefited children. 

Friday's ruling was merely frosting on the layered 'desperate willful ignorance' cake that is Sil's argument.


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> Excuse me...
> 
> But under your logic that you claim about New York v. Ferber, this adoption would have been voided and the Supreme Court would have surely ruled that the other state did not have to recognize the adoption.
> 
> All because protecting the children would have voided the adoption.



Did I say I agreed with the Decision?  No, I did not.  Sexual orientation that deprives children of a father (or mother) can't take legal precedent to children's needs for a mother and father.  This is going to be a tough challenge for the High Court.  Almost as tough as clarifying for Tennessee who will write their laws on marriage to include homosexuals but to dis-include polygamy and incest...all in the name of using Loving and the 14th to forward homosexuality alone, while still excluding others (in the name of "marriage equality).  Don't envy them at all.  Except they only have themselves to blame because they had to have known that picking favorites in "marriage equality" when it comes to just a tiny slice among a sea of fetish sexual behaviors was going to lead to problems if anyone asked for clarification on how that is "marriage equality".  If discernment is still allowed on which adults may or may not marry, who gets to decide that among a sea of sexual fetishes...all of which, including homosexuality, are repugnant legally to the majority?


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Sexual orientation that deprives children of a father (or mother) can't take legal precedent to children's needs for a mother and father. This is going to be a tough challenge for the High Court



The court ruled 8-0 yesterday when it came to Alabama's ignoring an adoption that occurred in Georgia. Funny how your sexual orientation is allowed to deprive a child of a mother and father, though. 

If you didn't have double standards you wouldn't have any.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> Did I say I agreed with the Decision?  No, I did not.  Sexual orientation that deprives children of a father (or mother) can't take legal precedent to children's needs for a mother and father.  This is going to be a tough challenge for the High Court.



It wasn't s tough decision at all.  It was 8-0 by the High Court, states can't ignore the adoption of children by same-sex couples.


>>>>


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me...
> 
> But under your logic that you claim about New York v. Ferber, this adoption would have been voided and the Supreme Court would have surely ruled that the other state did not have to recognize the adoption.
> 
> All because protecting the children would have voided the adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say I agreed with the Decision?  No, I did not.
Click to expand...


But you did indicate that the Supreme Court was going to overturn Obergefell using your logic. And the Supreme Court just stomped on your reasoning so hard *it didn't even need to hold a hearing on the matter. *With the ruling unanimous and delivered summarily.

Sil.....how many times must you be laughably wrong before you acknowledge that the process you use to make legal predictions just sucks? You've literally never been right. 



> Sexual orientation that deprives children of a father (or mother) can't take legal precedent to children's needs for a mother and father.  This is going to be a tough challenge for the High Court.



Except that it isn't. As the summary ruling in explicit contradiction of your assumptions demonstrates. Their decision was unanimous.

Its gonna be quite the challenge for you though to convince the court to overturn itself based on your subjective opinion. Remember, its just you citing yourself. The court isn't obligated to refute any hapless batshit you make up. Or to disprove any of your pseudo-legal gibberish.

You made all that up.


----------



## Skylar

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say I agreed with the Decision?  No, I did not.  Sexual orientation that deprives children of a father (or mother) can't take legal precedent to children's needs for a mother and father.  This is going to be a tough challenge for the High Court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't s tough decision at all.  It was 8-0 by the High Court, states can't ignore the adoption of children by same-sex couples.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


They didn't even need a hearing. That's how much of a no-brainer it was.


----------



## mdk

Skylar said:


> They didn't even need a hearing. That's how much of a no-brainer it was



The lawsuit filed by Dave from Tennessee is going to put a stop to all this gay marriage shit. Just you wait and see. lol


----------



## Skylar

mdk said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't even need a hearing. That's how much of a no-brainer it was
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lawsuit filed by Dave from Tennessee is going to put a stop to all this gay marriage shit. Just you wait and see. lol
Click to expand...


The one filed in COUNTY court? 

You can just smell the waves of quiet desperation radiating off of Sil with her quivering insistence that this random lawsuit in COUNTY court is going to overturn the Obergefell ruling.


----------



## mdk

Skylar said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't even need a hearing. That's how much of a no-brainer it was
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lawsuit filed by Dave from Tennessee is going to put a stop to all this gay marriage shit. Just you wait and see. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one filed in COUNTY court?
> 
> You can just smell the waves of quiet desperation radiating off of Sil with her quivering insistence that this random lawsuit in COUNTY court is going to overturn the Obergefell ruling.
Click to expand...


Now she alluding that she doesn't agree with the Ferber ruling despite gassing on about it for weeks. Apparently Sil is siding with porn peddler, Paul Ferber. lol


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'the consequences' being millions of same gender couples enjoying the same legal marriage as my wife and I enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is only between a man and a woman, .
Click to expand...


Yet same gender couples now are enjoying the same legal marriage as my wife and I enjoy. You are not happy with this- but legally Bob and Joe's marriage is exactly the same as my wife and my marriage.

The consequence being- more married couples who want to be married.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the judges who made these decisions will not be the ones to bear the consequences of them.  Those who will pay the price are not being given a voice or a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> What consequences are prices being paid for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fatherless children, for one thing.  Children willfully and deliberately deprived of a father.
> 
> Motherless children, for another.   Children willfully and deliberately deprived of a mother.
> 
> The children that are being deliberately harmed and abused in this unconscionable manner are not being given any voice or representation.  They are being thrown under the bus, their needs completely disregarded, in order to cater to immoral perverts.
Click to expand...


"Gay Marriage" doesn't actually do any of those things. Frankly what you are describing is 'divorce'

If June and Jane have two kids and are raising them together- their kids have no father- when they marry- that doesn't change- except their kids have the legal protections of having two married parents. Whether June or Jane are married doesn't make 'fatherless children'

What you are against are homosexuals raising kids.

So what do you want to do to prevent homosexuals from having kids Bob?

forced sterilization of homosexuals?
the forcible removal of children from their homosexual parents?
leaving kids to be abandoned in the streets rather than let otherwise qualified homosexual parents adopt them?
Tell us your alternative Bob. 

Because 'marriage' is not what results in 'fatherless kids'- divorce is what results in fatherless kids.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Dekster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Society is less likely to get a future taxpayer or two out of the same sex relationships, but otherwise, a same sex couple can have the same sort of relationship as any other couple except that more people will question the legitimacy of that emotional commitment than they will that of an opposite sex couple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about taxpayers or the adults carrying on with each other.  This is about what children got out of marriage for over a thousand years: a guaranteed mother and father. .
Click to expand...


Silhouette- are you in favor of incestuous marriage?


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acknowledge gay marriage, deny marriage to gays.....*and same sex parents are still same sex parents. *The only difference as far as the children are concerned is that recognizing same sex marriage benefits the children. Denying same sex marriage to their parents hurts those children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Willfully depriving children of a mother or of a father, is what hurts them.  Giving legal blessing to this deprivation does nothing to mitigate the harm that it causes.
> .
Click to expand...


So tell us all about how you are fighting to end legal divorce. 

Because that is what you are talking about- giving legal blessings to 'this depravation'.


----------



## Syriusly

Tipsycatlover said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need better supreme Court justices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With Scalia's replacement, we will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to replace Ginsberg and the two lezzies, Kagan and Sotomayor.
> 
> Normalcy should by the number one qualification.
Click to expand...


So you don't want Jews or Puerto Ricans or women as Justices.......no shock there....


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> What speech did the folks who ordered a cake at 'Sweet Cakes' demand? Specifically.
> 
> None. Making your 'slogan' analogy nonsense. *They simply ordered a cake*. And were denied due to their sexual orientation. Which is explicitly forbidden by Oregon PA laws...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what they ordered was a GAY WEDDING cake.  And that's the difference in Jude 1 that is forbidden
Click to expand...


Jude 1 doesn't mention homosexuals or cakes.

But the Bible does tell Christians to follow the law.

More specifically- Nowhere in the New Testament does it ever tell Christians explicitly not to do business with homosexuals.

BUT the New Testament EXPLICITLY tells Christians to follow the law

_13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. 
The authorities that exist have been established by God. 
2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. 
Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 
4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. 
They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 
5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience._

Another example of person's cherry picking what part of the Bible that they want to quote- in order to discriminate against homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me...
> 
> But under your logic that you claim about New York v. Ferber, this adoption would have been voided and the Supreme Court would have surely ruled that the other state did not have to recognize the adoption.
> 
> All because protecting the children would have voided the adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> This is going to be a tough challenge for the High Court.
Click to expand...


Wrong tense- the 'High Court' has already dealt with same gender marriage- its legal.

In all 50 states.


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court reverses Alabama court that denied lesbian woman's adoption
> 
> A unanimous decision from the court.
> 
> 
> 
> That was a case where a woman had natural children that a former lesbian partner (are you with me still?...poor kids...) wanted rights to as adopted or some such.
> 
> This is more a case it seems of adult familiarity with a child already in their midst than some stranger going to an adoption agency where both parents of the children are unknown or not part of the potentially adoptive couple..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Sil....what about your pseudo-legal horseshit about 'same sex parenting being child abuse' and how the court was going to overturn Obergefell to prevent it?
> 
> *They just ruled unanimously to *preserve* what you insist they will oppose. *
> 
> Have you ever gotten *any* legal prediction right? Any at all?
Click to expand...


Doesn't get much more explicity- which is of course why Silhouette will ignore what the Court says

_Now that they have split, E.L. agreed with the Alabama Supreme Court, which ruled in September that Georgia mistakenly granted V.L. joint custody. E.L.'s lawyers argued that "the Georgia court had no authority under Georgia law to award such an adoption, which is therefore void and not entitled to full faith and credit."

Not so, the Supreme Court ruled. "A state may not disregard the judgment of a sister state because it disagrees with the reasoning underlying the judgment or deems it to be wrong on the merits," its reversal said. Rather, Alabama must give "full faith and credit" to the Georgia court's decision._

8 to zero.

Meaning not a single Justice- not even Thomas- disagrees with the issue.


----------



## ChrisL

Bob Blaylock said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot discriminate against ANYONE if you are going to open a public accommodation business.  Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Westboro Baptist Church wanted a custom cake for one of its evens, decorated with its slogan _“GOD HATES FAGS!”_, should a baker be compelled to produce that cake,who finds that content or its purpose morally repugnant?  What if a Ku Klux Klan organization wants a KKK-themed cake, with images of burning crosses and black people being lynched from trees?  Or a neo-Nazi organization wanting a cake that praises Hitler and his “Final Solution”?
> 
> Will you apply your statement equally to those, and say that a baker has no right to _“discriminate”_ against those prospective customers?
Click to expand...


Having to write something that is insulting on a cake is different than just making a cake for a couple.  There is really no comparison there.


----------



## EverCurious

I personally think a business should have the right to hire, fire, and serve whomever they want, but that's not the law of the land so that's the end of the argument from me. (get more peeps and change the laws if one doesn't like it.)

I also think that such businesses who would chose to be so bigoted and stupid should be tried in the court of public opinion.  That's the market at work.


----------



## Skylar

EverCurious said:


> I personally think a business should have the right to hire, fire, and serve whomever they want, but that's not the law of the land so that's the end of the argument from me. (get more peeps and change the laws if one doesn't like it.)
> 
> I also think that such businesses who would chose to be so bigoted and stupid should be tried in the court of public opinion.  That's the market at work.



If I were writing the law I'd create two classes of services. Vital services and non-vital. Vital would include food stores, restaurants, clothing stores, hotels, motels, lunch counters, hardware stores, taxi and bus companies, child care, medical care, auto dealerships, etc. 

Non-vital would include jewelry stores, bakeries, coffee houses, yoga studios and the like. PA laws would apply to the former category. Not to the latter.

In our economic system, vital goods and services are distributed through private businesses. People need unfettered access to the purchase of these good and services. The non-vital services aren't as necessary. And consequently should be held to a lower standard in my opinion. 

The people in many States feel differently.


----------



## EverCurious

Skylar said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally think a business should have the right to hire, fire, and serve whomever they want, but that's not the law of the land so that's the end of the argument from me. (get more peeps and change the laws if one doesn't like it.)
> 
> I also think that such businesses who would chose to be so bigoted and stupid should be tried in the court of public opinion.  That's the market at work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I were writing the law I'd create two classes of services. Vital services and non-vital. Vital would include food stores, restaurants, clothing stores, hotels, motels, lunch counters, hardware stores, taxi and bus companies, child care, medical care, auto dealerships, etc.
> 
> Non-vital would include jewelry stores, bakeries, coffee houses, yoga studios and the like. PA laws would apply to the former category. Not to the latter.
> 
> In our economic system, vital goods and services are distributed through private businesses. People need unfettered access to the purchase of these good and services. The non-vital services aren't as necessary. And consequently should be held to a lower standard in my opinion.
> 
> The people in many States feel differently.
Click to expand...


I can agree with this precautionary stipulation.  Not that it will ever happen heh


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> _Not so, the Supreme Court ruled. "A state may not disregard the judgment of a sister state because it disagrees with the reasoning underlying the judgment or deems it to be wrong on the merits," its reversal said. Rather, Alabama must give "full faith and credit" to the Georgia court's decision._
> 
> 8 to zero....Meaning not a single Justice- not even Thomas- disagrees with the issue.



Oh, the technical question of law "must states respect sister states' laws"...yes yes...quite...  Though it is interesting that the Court just Affirmed Obergefell on the one hand concerning dicey technical weird family situations, but then in the next breath they cite "state's authority" on making same/similar calls...Funny how they only respect state sovereignty when it favors their favorite deviant sex behaviors (homosexuality) but not others (polygamy).  It was the same with Windsor.  The Court affirmed in the Opinion no less than 56 times that what types of marriage are allowed are "the state's unquestioned authority".   

I wonder, will the states now also respect the women of the Brown family of Utah adopting each other's kids?  No?  Why not?  (Please cite the 14th Amendment in your answer)..

I'm talking about the broader question of law: should any marriage be legal when it deprives children of a unique enjoyment of the marriage contract they had for over a thousand years to their betterment (BOTH a mother and father)?  That's what I'm talking about.  Of course everything is bullshit and up in flux right now legally.  Obergefell was a friggin' trainwreck Decision with effects they'll be unsnarling for decades to come if the GOP doesn't step in quick and put a stop the LGBT cult pocket-Justices nonsense...


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> I'm talking about the broader question of law: should any marriage be legal when it deprives children of a unique enjoyment of the marriage contract they had for over a thousand years to their betterment (BOTH a mother and father)? That's what I'm talking about. Of course everything is bullshit and up in flux right now legally. Obergefell was a friggin' trainwreck Decision with effects they'll be unsnarling for decades to come if the GOP doesn't step in quick and put a stop the LGBT cult pocket-Justices nonsense...



Children an are not recognized as an implicit member of any marriage contract in any state/commonwealth. Rendering your broader question moot.


The Justices just ruled that Alabama must recognize same-sex adoptions performed in other states by a unanimous dcesions. Is Thomas, Alito, and, Roberts in on the LGBT conspiracy as well?


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Children an are not recognized as an implicit member of any marriage contract in any state/commonwealth. Rendering your broader question moot.


That is a question of law that has yet to be settled.  And it will, mdk, it will.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> That is a question of law that has yet to be settled.  And it will, mdk, it will.



Before or after your predicted impeachment of Kagan and Sotomayer?


>>>>


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children an are not recognized as an implicit member of any marriage contract in any state/commonwealth. Rendering your broader question moot.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a question of law that has yet to be settled.  And it will, mdk, it will.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. It isn't even a question. Children are not an implicit party to a marriage contract despite all your claims to the contrary. You'll have to excuse me if I take this legal prediction of yours with a grain of salt. One can hardly blame me considering your dismal record.


----------



## g5000

Silhouette said:


> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.


Your obsession with homosexuals is pathological.

I bet there is an interesting story there.


----------



## mdk

g5000 said:


> Your obsession with homosexuals is pathological.
> 
> I bet there is an interesting story there.




_The Rocky Horror Picture Show_ is partially to blame. I shit you not. lol


----------



## ChrisL

Anyone with such an obsession with homosexuals MUST be a closet homosexual!!!    Who on earth thinks about this stuff all day, every day?  It's just freaking weird, if you ask me.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Not so, the Supreme Court ruled. "A state may not disregard the judgment of a sister state because it disagrees with the reasoning underlying the judgment or deems it to be wrong on the merits," its reversal said. Rather, Alabama must give "full faith and credit" to the Georgia court's decision._
> 
> 8 to zero....Meaning not a single Justice- not even Thomas- disagrees with the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the technical question of law "must states respect sister states' laws"...yes yes...quite...
Click to expand...


Laughing.....oh, look. Another excuse for why none of your pseudo-legal gibberish has any connection to reality. The Supreme Court just stomped your argument yet again, voting unanimously to preserve what you insist the USSC will overturn. 



> Though it is interesting that the Court just Affirmed Obergefell on the one hand concerning dicey technical weird family situations, but then in the next breath they cite "state's authority" on making same/similar calls...Funny how they only respect state sovereignty when it favors their favorite deviant sex behaviors (homosexuality) but not others (polygamy).  It was the same with Windsor.  The Court affirmed in the Opinion no less than 56 times that what types of marriage are allowed are "the state's unquestioned authority".



Its not 'strange', Sil....when you don't omit the words 'subject to certain constitutional guarantees' from the Windsor ruling. 

You always do. And then always get so confused. Its one of the reasons your legal predictions are such a perfect failure. 



> I'm talking about the broader question of law: should any marriage be legal when it deprives children of a unique enjoyment of the marriage contract they had for over a thousand years to their betterment (BOTH a mother and father)?  That's what I'm talking about.  Of course everything is bullshit and up in flux right now legally.  Obergefell was a friggin' trainwreck Decision with effects they'll be unsnarling for decades to come if the GOP doesn't step in quick and put a stop the LGBT cult pocket-Justices nonsense...



You keep switching up your pseudo-legal babble. Insisting first that children were married to their parents. Then that the marriage of parents created a 'minor contract' for children. Then that children were 'third party beneficiaries' of their parents. And now the buzz word that you're fixated on but still don't understand....is 'unique enjoyment'.

Children aren't parties to the marriage of their parents. Ending your entire argument. 

You simply don't know a thing about contract law.


----------



## Skylar

ChrisL said:


> Anyone with such an obsession with homosexuals MUST be a closet homosexual!!!    Who on earth thinks about this stuff all day, every day?  It's just freaking weird, if you ask me.



Nah. Sil is just a compulsively obsessive person who suffered twin personal tragedies recently; the death of a parent and personal disability. Either or both can push idiosyncratic behavior into full-on mental illness. 

She did something similar with Obama's nomination in 2008, creating elaborate theories, forming groups, 'fighting the good fight'. This kind of compulsive fixation is kind of her thing.

It didn't amount to much then ether.


----------



## ChrisL

Skylar said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with such an obsession with homosexuals MUST be a closet homosexual!!!    Who on earth thinks about this stuff all day, every day?  It's just freaking weird, if you ask me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. Sil is just a compulsively obsessive person who suffered twin personal tragedies recently; the death of a parent and personal disability. Either or both can push idiosyncratic behavior into full on mental illness.
Click to expand...


How do you know so much about this poster's personal life?  

Okay, well it is certainly NOT normal to be so obsessed.  It is just weird.  I've had some personal tragedies, as have all of us, I'm sure, so . . .  I don't consider that a valid reason.


----------



## Skylar

ChrisL said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with such an obsession with homosexuals MUST be a closet homosexual!!!    Who on earth thinks about this stuff all day, every day?  It's just freaking weird, if you ask me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. Sil is just a compulsively obsessive person who suffered twin personal tragedies recently; the death of a parent and personal disability. Either or both can push idiosyncratic behavior into full on mental illness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know so much about this poster's personal life?
Click to expand...


She's created a website to fight homosexuals where she gives a bio.....its in her signature beneath every post. I took a minute and read it once.



> Okay, well it is certainly NOT normal to be so obsessed.  It is just weird.  I've had some personal tragedies, as have all of us, I'm sure, so . . .  I don't consider that a valid reason.



Oh, its definitely weird. Sil herself has admitted that she has to stop, that her posting here is taking a personal and emotional toll and damaging her.

Yet here she is.


----------



## Inevitable

If you people care so much about children having a mother and a father, turn off your damned computer, go get married, and adopt up all of the parentless children so the gays can't get them.

You don't give the slightest shit about it. You are just using this as a justification for your prejudice. If you believed that every child deserves a mother and a father, you would find a spouse make it work and adopt a couple of children. You don't give a shit. Don't act like you do.


----------



## Silhouette

Inevitable said:


> If you people care so much about children having a mother and a father, turn off your damned computer, go get married, and adopt up all of the parentless children so the gays can't get them.
> 
> *You don't give the slightest shit about it. You are just using this as a justification for your prejudice*. If you believed that every child deserves a mother and a father, you would find a spouse make it work and adopt a couple of children. You don't give a shit. Don't act like you do.



Well let's just say for argument's sake that you're right, (but you're not), it appears as if 90% of all the other folks who responded to the poll in this thread do give a shit about whether a child has both a mother and father in their life growing up.  So the chances that I actually do give a shit are excellent.  I would have to be the rare exception if I didn't give shit about that...


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you people care so much about children having a mother and a father, turn off your damned computer, go get married, and adopt up all of the parentless children so the gays can't get them.
> 
> *You don't give the slightest shit about it. You are just using this as a justification for your prejudice*. If you believed that every child deserves a mother and a father, you would find a spouse make it work and adopt a couple of children. You don't give a shit. Don't act like you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's just say for argument's sake that you're right, (but you're not), it appears as if 90% of all the other folks who responded to the poll in this thread do give a shit about whether a child has both a mother and father in their life growing up.  So the chances that I actually do give a shit are excellent.  I would have to be the rare exception if I didn't give shit about that...
Click to expand...


Given that your 'solution' is to deny marriage to same sex parents and denying marriage to same sex parents does nothing to remedy the 'problem' you've cited, chances are excellent that you don't give a shit about kids.

As your proposed solution only hurts children. And you know it hurts children.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you people care so much about children having a mother and a father, turn off your damned computer, go get married, and adopt up all of the parentless children so the gays can't get them.
> 
> *You don't give the slightest shit about it. You are just using this as a justification for your prejudice*. If you believed that every child deserves a mother and a father, you would find a spouse make it work and adopt a couple of children. You don't give a shit. Don't act like you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's just say for argument's sake that you're right, (but you're not), it appears as if 90% of all the other folks who responded to the poll in this thread do give a shit about whether a child has both a mother and father in their life growing up.  So the chances that I actually do give a shit are excellent.  I would have to be the rare exception if I didn't give shit about that...
Click to expand...


How exactly does stopping gays from marrying prohibit them from raising children? Oh, wait...it doesn't. 

You only care about kids to find a way to smear gay people. You disregard them when you can't and claim _hope_ is substitute for a missing parent. Either way, you are woefully irrelevant to gay families.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> How exactly does stopping gays from marrying prohibit them from raising children? Oh, wait...it doesn't.
> 
> You only care about kids to find a way to smear gay people. You disregard them when you can't and claim _hope_ is substitute for a missing parent. Either way, you are woefully irrelevant to gay families.


Since marriage was created to cure the ills of children not having both a mother and father, your question is irrelevant to the topic.

Of note is "gay marriage" binds children away from both a mother and father as a contractual term, for life.  Whereas all the other inferior situations to marriage as far as kids are concerned can be remedied in their best interest.  That remedy is shut off by a legally binding term of contract in "gay marriage"...  Which simultaneously is not allowed in contract law where infants are involved..


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly does stopping gays from marrying prohibit them from raising children? Oh, wait...it doesn't.
> 
> You only care about kids to find a way to smear gay people. You disregard them when you can't and claim _hope_ is substitute for a missing parent. Either way, you are woefully irrelevant to gay families.
> 
> 
> 
> Since marriage was created to cure the ills of children not having both a mother and father, your question is irrelevant to the topic.
Click to expand...


Since marriage wasn't created to 'cure the ill of children not having both a mother and father' your post is irrelevant to the topic.

You know full well that denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children. But hurts them. Nor does denying same sex parents marriage help any child.

And that's why you avoid the question that MDK asked you like it was on fire.



> Of note is "gay marriage" binds children away from both a mother and father as a contractual term, for life.  Whereas all the other inferior situations to marriage as far as kids are concerned can be remedied in their best interest.  That remedy is shut off by a legally binding term of contract in "gay marriage"...  Which simultaneously is not allowed in contract law where infants are involved..



Marriage doesn't establish the gender of your parents. Nor is it necessary to have children. As the hundreds of thousands of same sex parents before the Obergefell ruling demonstrate.

Nor does denying marriage to same sex parents magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that that their children will never have married parents. Which hurts children by hundreds of thousands. And helps no child.

All of which you know. Why then would we ever inflict the harm you insist we inflict on children? What's the benefit?

The answer is simple: there is none. And you know that too.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly does stopping gays from marrying prohibit them from raising children? Oh, wait...it doesn't.
> 
> You only care about kids to find a way to smear gay people. You disregard them when you can't and claim _hope_ is substitute for a missing parent. Either way, you are woefully irrelevant to gay families.
> 
> 
> 
> Since marriage was created to cure the ills of children not having both a mother and father, your question is irrelevant to the topic.
> 
> Of note is "gay marriage" binds children away from both a mother and father as a contractual term, for life.  Whereas all the other inferior situations to marriage as far as kids are concerned can be remedied in their best interest.  That remedy is shut off by a legally binding term of contract in "gay marriage"...  Which simultaneously is not allowed in contract law where infants are involved..
Click to expand...


And by _irrelevant_ you mean inconvenient. lol No, marriage wasn't created to cure the ills of children not having a mother and father. Those are idiotic lies you tell yourself to further your rabidly anti-gay narrative.

The rest of your post is the same debunked bullshit you spam daily.

Poor little irrelevant, Mentally Sil.


----------



## Silhouette

No, marriage was about curing the ills of fatherless or motherless children.  There is so much documented history on this that ...well...good luck in court.  Besides...you know how the Justices feel about ruling on the propensity of public opinion.  Clearly 90% of the public feels a child having both a mother and father is important.  Gay marriage deprives children via contract of either a mother or father for life.  Nobody but NOBODY will say this is an acceptable condition that is "good for" children.  Depriving a child of a necessity via a contractual bond is forbidden by law.


----------



## EverCurious

If anything, I'd say marriage was created to consolidate and retain power and wealth for a male leader.   While the formation of a bonding relationship of "family" has always existed and been recognized by "outsiders" in some manner or another, the "official" act of "legal" style marriage itself appears to have come out of Mesopotamia around 2300BC as a contract of a male leaders ownership.  This might not be PC and I mean no disrespect, but I've always found it interesting that what amounts to a slave contract evolved where it did and was adopted by everyone.  It's always hammered home just how prevalent slavery was in ancient times, and I'm afraid, just how unimportant the supposed "sanctity" of marriage really was in it's inception.  

This original concept of marriage as invented [by the Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans as far as we have studied evidence thus far] was nothing more than the equivalent to a deed on a house or the title to a car - and just as with property today, there were no restrictions upon how many wives one had, and as it evolved there were no restrictions upon how many [nor what sex] lovers a married [man] could have [and in Roman society wealthy married women were allowed lovers], nor were there ever really restrictions upon ridding oneself of a wife [or husband, later in history.]   Marriage's evolution has components of reproduction, in that the children of the wife became property of the man - very similarly to how puppies become property of the human owner, rather than the mother dog - mothers did not own their children once marriage evolved, instead the husband did, and marriage also made it possible for him to rid himself of the mother at any time, while still retaining ownership of the child(ren) - thus enabling him to effectively pass on his aquired property and wealth to a "chosen" child [usually a son because women were little more "important" than horses back then - though the perceived importance of women did increase from that point fairly quickly, it still took thousands and thousands of years for women to have a measureable "status" with any more "power" than, for example, a dog show champion would command.]  

Religion didn't actually get ahold of "marriage" until 1563, when the Catholic church determined /they/ would have control over said property right conveyance [nearly 4000 years after the invention of "marriage"] - an act which enabled the church to dictate which family lines would be allowed to consolidate power.  By bringing in marriage as an official canon, and restricting its validation and legality to only /their/ priests, they effectively severed property rights of non-believers enabling them to take possession upon death, with the added benefit of forcing the people to covert to their religion in order to pass down their property to their kids.  An immensely effective plan with little to no war required, so long as they controlled the king.  Absolutely brilliant.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> No, marriage was about curing the ills of fatherless or motherless children.  There is so much documented history on this that ...well...good luck in court.  Besides...you know how the Justices feel about ruling on the propensity of public opinion.  Clearly 90% of the public feels a child having both a mother and father is important.  Gay marriage deprives children via contract of either a mother or father for life.  Nobody but NOBODY will say this is an acceptable condition that is "good for" children.  Depriving a child of a necessity via a contractual bond is forbidden by law.




Are you in favor of incestuous marriage?


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> No, marriage was about curing the ills of fatherless or motherless children.  There is so much documented history on this that ...well...good luck in court.  Besides...you know how the Justices feel about ruling on the propensity of public opinion.  Clearly 90% of the public feels a child having both a mother and father is important.  Gay marriage deprives children via contract of either a mother or father for life.  Nobody but NOBODY will say this is an acceptable condition that is "good for" children.  Depriving a child of a necessity via a contractual bond is forbidden by law.



Luck isn't needed. The Surpeme Court just ruled 8-zip forcing Alabama to recognize same-sex adoptions performed in other states. No where in their ruling did they mention children being an implicit part of a marriage contract. All your whiny bullshit doesn't change reality. You lose...again.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> There is so much documented history on this that ..



so much....that you never produce any.......


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> No, marriage was about curing the ills of fatherless or motherless children.



Nope. 



> There is so much documented history on this that ...well...good luck in court.



You're not citing 'documented history'. You're citing yourself. And like your pseudo-legal gibberish regarding 'contract law', you have no idea what you're talking about.



> Besides...you know how the Justices feel about ruling on the propensity of public opinion.  Clearly 90% of the public feels a child having both a mother and father is important.  Gay marriage deprives children via contract of either a mother or father for life.  Nobody but NOBODY will say this is an acceptable condition that is "good for" children.  Depriving a child of a necessity via a contractual bond is forbidden by law.



Oh, support for same sex marriage is overwhelming. Its approaching 2 to 1 in favor. 






Hitting an all time high last year. 

Be it legal consensus of public opinion.....you're only lying to yourself, Sil.


----------



## Inevitable

Silhouette said:


> Well let's just say for argument's sake that you're right, (but you're not), it appears as if 90% of all the other folks who responded to the poll in this thread do give a shit about whether a child has both a mother and father in their life growing up.


Just saying that doesn't make it so. And actions speak louder than words. Do how many of these posters that apparently care so much have adopted children that had neither parent?

You don't care, at least not enough to make a difference.

All I hear is hot air.


Silhouette said:


> So the chances that I actually do give a shit are excellent.


Action speaks louder than words darling. 



Silhouette said:


> I would have to be the rare exception if I didn't give shit about that...


Hot air.


----------



## Inevitable

Skylar said:


> Given that your 'solution' is to deny marriage to same sex parents and denying marriage to same sex parents does nothing to remedy the 'problem' you've cited, chances are excellent that you don't give a shit about kids.


She'd prefer these kids just rot in foster care. That's such a wonderful thing.


----------



## Silhouette

Inevitable said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that your 'solution' is to deny marriage to same sex parents and denying marriage to same sex parents does nothing to remedy the 'problem' you've cited, chances are excellent that you don't give a shit about kids.
> 
> 
> 
> She'd prefer these kids just rot in foster care. That's such a wonderful thing.
Click to expand...

Gotta get to those vulnerable kids!  Gotta create a legal loophole to get at them by denying all children involved their contractual enjoyments in marriage to both a mother and father...for life..!

"Foster kids"...I can just see the drool forming on pedophiles' chins..  You know, when you go around celebrating "twinks" as a culture and celebrating a man like Harvey Milk who preyed on "Foster kids"...well, OK, he preferred them homeless on the streets on drugs...but you get the idea: no intent guardians to really safeguard them..  I'm sure you'd be advocating "gay marriage" as a vehicle to get them home legally and kept so you don't have to go to jail.

Not saying all gays.   But just identifying yourself by a deviant sexual behavior as a proud identity is screaming red flags right and left so.. Would I adopt to you a foster child if I just saw you wigging your ass dry humping on a float in a pride parade...oogling at young bodies (like is commonly seen at pride parades)?  No, I wouldn't.  You belong to a cult of rampant and bridleless sexual promiscuity and "exploration", you don't get to adopt your coveted "Foster kids"..

I'd still like to see a survey done of the gender of children gay men, for example, are asking to adopt (since they can't manufacture children into their lives as easily as lesbians).  But we don't really have to see that survey to guess do we?  I'd put my money running at around 90%+ of gay men if given the choice would want to take home little boys every time...maybe about 5 years apart in age....one after the other.  That's how Harvey Milk did it, tossing one twink aside for a younger one about 5 years younger than the trash he just used and threw out the door..  Two or three of his boy toys...his foster boys..killed themselves after the "Milk treatment"..

I want you to notice the body language of this little boy adopted by the two men in the picture.  I used to study primates with a family member when she was getting her master's degree in anthropology.  We'd watch them for a long while and observed their body language.  The boy in the photo below has his hands curled and turned inward up against his chest in a protective gesture.  It is clear he is not extending his hands in love or trust to either of the men flanking him.  He is doing the exact opposite of that.  And looking behind his sunglasses, you can just make out the whites of his eyes that are widened, suggesting fear.

The man atop the boy has his chin clamped down over his head and a look almost of insidious cruelty in the glint of his eyes and smile.  His partner sports a flinty look of assent and a cheshire cat smile.  I read an article on these guys and it was reported they went back over and again to the adoption agency wanting "just the right child".  When they got this boy they rejoiced calling him "beautiful".  So, you decide. (not sure if that's chocolate or a cold sore on the side of the boy's mouth)..


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that your 'solution' is to deny marriage to same sex parents and denying marriage to same sex parents does nothing to remedy the 'problem' you've cited, chances are excellent that you don't give a shit about kids.
> 
> 
> 
> She'd prefer these kids just rot in foster care. That's such a wonderful thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gotta get to those vulnerable kids!  Gotta create a legal loophole to get at them by denying all children involved their contractual enjoyments in marriage to both a mother and father!  "Foster kids"...I can just see the drool forming on your chin..
Click to expand...


Wouldn't children have to first be party to marriage contact before a legal loophole was created? Seeing as not a single state recognizes children as such it appears you are shit of luck.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that your 'solution' is to deny marriage to same sex parents and denying marriage to same sex parents does nothing to remedy the 'problem' you've cited, chances are excellent that you don't give a shit about kids.
> 
> 
> 
> She'd prefer these kids just rot in foster care. That's such a wonderful thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gotta get to those vulnerable kids!  Gotta create a legal loophole to get at them by denying all children involved their contractual enjoyments in marriage to both a mother and father...for life..!
Click to expand...


Save of course that children aren't parties to the marriage of their children. You keep forgetting this part. ....as if by ignoring it the law magically changes.

Um, Sil....that's not how reality works. The law doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes. And while your eyes are closed it doesn't matter what you imagine inside your head.

Nothing changes out here.



> "Foster kids"...I can just see the drool forming on pedophiles' chins..  You know, when you go around celebrating "twinks" as a culture and celebrating a man like Harvey Milk who preyed on "Foster kids"...well, OK, he preferred them homeless on the streets on drugs...but you get the idea: no intent guardians to really safeguard them..  I'm sure you'd be advocating "gay marriage" as a vehicle to get them home legally and kept so you don't have to go to jail.
> 
> Not saying all gays.   But just identifying yourself by a deviant sexual behavior as a proud identity is screaming red flags right and left so.. Would I adopt to you a foster child if I just saw you wigging your ass dry humping on a float in a pride parade...oogling at young bodies (like is commonly seen at pride parades)?  No, I wouldn't.  You belong to a cult of rampant and bridleless sexual promiscuity and "exploration", you don't get to adopt your coveted "Foster kids"..



So a gay guy shakes his ass on a float....and that means that *some other* gay guy hundreds of miles away wouldn't be a good foster parent? WTF?

Can we apply the same logic to some girl at spring break.....and you? Shes female. You're female. She shook her ass. So you can't be a good foster parent, right?

If not, why not?


----------



## Skylar

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that your 'solution' is to deny marriage to same sex parents and denying marriage to same sex parents does nothing to remedy the 'problem' you've cited, chances are excellent that you don't give a shit about kids.
> 
> 
> 
> She'd prefer these kids just rot in foster care. That's such a wonderful thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gotta get to those vulnerable kids!  Gotta create a legal loophole to get at them by denying all children involved their contractual enjoyments in marriage to both a mother and father!  "Foster kids"...I can just see the drool forming on your chin..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't children have to first be party to marriage contact before a legal loophole was created? Seeing as not a single state recognizes children as such it appears you are shit of luck.
Click to expand...


Trivial detail. Hardly worth mentioning.


----------



## Inevitable

Silhouette said:


> Gotta get to those vulnerable kids!  Gotta create a legal loophole to get at them by denying all children involved their contractual enjoyments in marriage to both a mother and father...for life..!


Ideal parents are ones that put their child first, not ones that have crotches that match up. Further children aren't party to the contract of marriage. The heterosexuals ate the ones that deny children such things anyway.




Silhouette said:


> "Foster kids"...I can just see the drool forming on pedophiles' chins..


You'd prefer them being in that situation instead of with living parents or parent.  



Silhouette said:


> You know, when you go around celebrating "twinks" as a culture and celebrating a man like Harvey Milk who preyed on "Foster kids"...well, OK, he preferred them homeless on the streets on drugs...but you get the idea: no intent guardians to really safeguard them..  I'm sure you'd be advocating "gay marriage" as a vehicle to get them home legally and kept so you don't have to go to jail.


I don't recall celebrating Harvey milk. In fact I had never heard of the guy until people like you who apparently celebrate him far more than I do, exposed your love affair with the guy.

Further sexually amusing kids is wrong and that isn't the goal for anybody but pedophiles. Oddly enough heterosexuals make up 97% if pedophiles.



Silhouette said:


> Not saying all gays.   But just identifying yourself by a deviant sexual behavior as a proud identity is screaming red flags right and left so.


You are the one that is identifying people in such a manner. Being gay means having romantic relationships with people of the same sex. It implies nothing deviant.



Silhouette said:


> Would I adopt to you a foster child if I just saw you wigging your ass dry humping on a float in a pride parade...oogling at young bodies (like is commonly seen at pride parades)?  No, I wouldn't.


Of course, you'd rather foster them out to pedophiles and various other child abusers.



Silhouette said:


> You belong to a cult of rampant and bridleless sexual promiscuity and "exploration", you don't get to adopt your coveted "Foster kids"..


No, I gave up sex cults when I left organized religion. Further anybody that proves they are financially capable and capable of providing a safe environment for a child can adopt one. And they aren't of any value to you. You'd rather see them put with pedophiles.



Silhouette said:


> i'd still like to see a survey done of the gender of children gay men, for example, are asking to adopt (since they can't manufacture children into their lives as easily as lesbians).  But we don't really have to see that survey to guess do we?  I'd put my money running at around 90%+ of gay men if given the choice would want to take home little boys every time...maybe about 5 years apart in age....one after the other.


What a pile of garbage.



Silhouette said:


> That's how Harvey Milk did it, tossing one twink aside for a younger one about 5 years younger than the trash he just used and threw out the door..  Two or three of his boy toys...his foster boys..killed themselves after the "Milk treatment"..


Here you go talking about your boyfriend again. When heterosexuals want to molest children they just coach a football team or become a pastor.



Silhouette said:


> I want you to notice the body language of this little boy adopted by the two men in the picture.  I used to study primates with a family member when she was getting her master's degree in anthropology.  We'd watch them for a long while and observed their body language.  The boy in the photo below has his hands curled and turned inward up against his chest in a protective gesture.  It is clear he is not extending his hands in love or trust to either of the men flanking him.  He is doing the exact opposite of that.  And looking behind his sunglasses, you can just make out the whites of his eyes that are widened, suggesting fear.
> 
> The man atop the boy has his chin clamped down over his head and a look almost of insidious cruelty in the glint of his eyes and smile.  His partner sports a flinty look of assent and a cheshire cat smile.  I read an article on these guys and it was reported they went back over and again to the adoption agency wanting "just the right child".  When they got this boy they rejoiced calling him "beautiful".  So, you decide. (not sure if that's chocolate or a cold sore on the side of the boy's mouth)..


You are what is known as a bigot. You think every gay man is a child molester just because your boyfriend (milk) was allegedly.

I don't really care about your amateur Anthropologie, because you want to see what you see. You have developed x-ray vision to feed your obsession.

I'm starting to wonder if your husband or boyfriend left you for a man.


----------



## Inevitable

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that your 'solution' is to deny marriage to same sex parents and denying marriage to same sex parents does nothing to remedy the 'problem' you've cited, chances are excellent that you don't give a shit about kids.
> 
> 
> 
> She'd prefer these kids just rot in foster care. That's such a wonderful thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gotta get to those vulnerable kids!  Gotta create a legal loophole to get at them by denying all children involved their contractual enjoyments in marriage to both a mother and father...for life..!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save of course that children aren't parties to the marriage of their children. You keep forgetting this part. ....as if by ignoring it the law magically changes.
> 
> Um, Sil....that's not how reality works. The law doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes. And while your eyes are closed it doesn't matter what you imagine inside your head.
> 
> Nothing changes out here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Foster kids"...I can just see the drool forming on pedophiles' chins..  You know, when you go around celebrating "twinks" as a culture and celebrating a man like Harvey Milk who preyed on "Foster kids"...well, OK, he preferred them homeless on the streets on drugs...but you get the idea: no intent guardians to really safeguard them..  I'm sure you'd be advocating "gay marriage" as a vehicle to get them home legally and kept so you don't have to go to jail.
> 
> Not saying all gays.   But just identifying yourself by a deviant sexual behavior as a proud identity is screaming red flags right and left so.. Would I adopt to you a foster child if I just saw you wigging your ass dry humping on a float in a pride parade...oogling at young bodies (like is commonly seen at pride parades)?  No, I wouldn't.  You belong to a cult of rampant and bridleless sexual promiscuity and "exploration", you don't get to adopt your coveted "Foster kids"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So a gay guy shakes his ass on a float....and that means that *some other* gay guy hundreds of miles away wouldn't be a good foster parent? WTF?
> 
> Can we apply the same logic to some girl at spring break.....and you? Shes female. You're female. She shook her ass. So you can't be a good foster parent, right?
> 
> If not, why not?
Click to expand...

Yes, because in the puny mind of a bigot she assumes all gay men are pedophiles.

There has to be an emotional reason for her to view ask gay men with such contempt. I'm thinking she was cheated on by her lover with another man. Or she is angry that gay men get and keep men while she doesn't.


----------



## Inevitable

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that your 'solution' is to deny marriage to same sex parents and denying marriage to same sex parents does nothing to remedy the 'problem' you've cited, chances are excellent that you don't give a shit about kids.
> 
> 
> 
> She'd prefer these kids just rot in foster care. That's such a wonderful thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gotta get to those vulnerable kids!  Gotta create a legal loophole to get at them by denying all children involved their contractual enjoyments in marriage to both a mother and father!  "Foster kids"...I can just see the drool forming on your chin..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't children have to first be party to marriage contact before a legal loophole was created? Seeing as not a single state recognizes children as such it appears you are shit of luck.
Click to expand...


Mental gymnastics are always required when trying to pass camels through needle eyes.

I think she's better off playing leap frog with unicorns.


----------



## Silhouette

It's not mental gymnastics...


----------



## Silhouette

Inevitable said:


> ...assumes all gay men are pedophiles.



No, I just read about the propensity of gays to molest, that's all:

Mayo Clinic 2007:



> Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range..and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles by whether they are attracted to only male children (*homosexual pedophilia*), female children (heterosexual pedophilia),or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia)....The percentage of homosexual pedophiles* ranges from 9% to 40%*, which is approximately 4 to 20  times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men.. http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf



Gay men account for around 2% of the population.  Yet they are responsible for up to 40% of all reported molestations of children.  Of note is their target demographic: boys.  And a phenomenon well known with reporting molestation in children is that boys are far more likely to under report being molested because of the stigma attached to being buggered.  So it's quite likely the propensity is closer to 40% or even above that for such a tiny tiny demographic doing all that.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> It's not mental gymnastics...



Given that children aren't parties to the marriage of their parents.....and your entire argument is that children are parties to the marriage of their parents...

...yeah, its gymnastics.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> [Q
> Not saying all gays.



Of course you are saying 'all gays'- that is the only thing you do- day in and day out. 

I still remember when I posted the wonderful story of this couple- who stepped up to foster and adopt handicapped children that their own parents had abandoned






When I posted their story- you commented by saying that there was a reason why they only adopted boys and implied that they were molesting them- because that is what you do- you lie- and you attack homosexuals- even ones doing something as noble as these men are doing.

Once again- their story- and why they are good human beings- and you are a vile human being.

Why aren't you starting threads talking about men like these- who frankly are braver and nobler than I am- rather than spending your days trying to figure out how to harm the children adopted by homosexuals?

_They have been together in a relationship for 24 years, and before they became full-time carers, Andrew taught at a school for children with special needs, and David worked in adult social care.

They first fostered 18 years ago. Then, the idea of two men adopting a child was uncommon, which is partly what led them to foster when, due to Andrew's experience with children with special needs, they were asked if they would look after a boy with severe disabilities. "He wasn't expected to live to his first birthday, although he eventually lived until he was seven and a half," says Andrew.

The death of a child will always be traumatic, but Andrew and David felt compelled to continue.

"He'd taught us so much and we'd developed so many skills … we thought, we can't just leave it. We've got to do something with this knowledge. That's when we decided to carry on fostering children with profound disabilities and terminal conditions."

The couple contacted Credo Care, an organisation that specialises in disability foster placements. Shortly after, Armand arrived.

"He arrived in March, 10 years ago," explains David. Born in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, six-year-old Armand had lived in hospital for most of his short life. A wheelchair user, he has severe learning disabilities, a tracheotomy and is fed through a Peg [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy].

"He came to us when he was six and was the first one to arrive. Four months later, we had an emergency phone call, asking us if we'd take a boy from Derby. Luke arrived that afternoon. He was 12 and had Duchenne muscular dystrophy. In those days he could shuffle around, but now, he's totally … well, the disease has got hold of his body. He's 22 now. He's a great lad, he really is. He's brilliant."

A couple of months after Luke joined the household, the couple were asked to take Steven, who was five and had cerebral palsy and learning difficulties. They have looked after the three boys ever since. Two years ago, they adopted a little girl. Sadly, she wasn't well and didn't live long.

"We had 17 wonderful months," says David. "She was three when she died. It was just 10 days after the adoption was completed, and it was very sudden, so … we haven't gone down that road again," he adds, choosing his words carefully to describe what must have been a devastating experience.

The latest addition to the household arrived earlier this year. Three-year-old Emma is immobile, has limited vision and breathes via a tracheotomy, but appears to be thriving in their care._

_Gay foster carers: 'I love every minute of it'_


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...assumes all gay men are pedophiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I just read about the propensity of gays to molest, that's all:
> 
> Mayo Clinic 2007:\t.
Click to expand...


You are such a vile liar.


The "Mayo Clinic" had nothing to do with that study
The study by Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall specifically says the opposite of what you say- and you specifically lie- by leaving out the very next sentence that contradicts you- you are a vile liar.
Silhouttes quote in yellow- what she left out in red- because she is a blatant liar
The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20 times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men (using a prevalence rate of adult homosexuality of 2%-4%).5,7,10,19,29,30

This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, just that a larger percentage of pedophiles are homosexual or bisexual in orientation to children.
19


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> [
> Gay men account for around 2% of the population.  Yet they are responsible for up to 40% of all reported molestations of children.t.



Men account for around 50% of the population. Yet men are responsible for up to 98% of all reported molestation of children.

Girls account for as much as 90% of the victims of child sexual abuse- yet Silhouette has never started a thread or condemned the molestation of a girl.


----------



## Inevitable

Silhouette said:


> It's not mental gymnastics...


It certainly doesn't follow.


----------



## Inevitable

Silhouette said:


> Gay men account for around 2% of the population.


Incorrect. Men who identify as gay account
For 2% of the population.



Silhouette said:


> Yet they are responsible for up to 40% of all reported molestations of children.


No they aren't sweetheart. They're only responsible for about 1% to 2% of it. 

I'm glad you posted this dishonest horseshit. I delight in debunking it.

Men who molest boys typically identify as heterosexual and not homosexual, so they aren't counted in the 2% that identify as homosexual.  

I see no point in responding to any of the other garbage you posted because it's based on the gaping hole in your logic I just pointed out.


----------



## Inevitable

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not mental gymnastics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that children aren't parties to the marriage of their parents.....and your entire argument is that children are parties to the marriage of their parents...
> 
> ...yeah, its gymnastics.
Click to expand...

Well, I think she's right it's not gymnastics. It's just flat out lies.

Nobody but puerile that share her animosity toward homosexual men will believe her horse shit.

The ones that do, only do so in order to justify their prejudice.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...assumes all gay men are pedophiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I just read about the propensity of gays to molest, that's all:
> 
> Mayo Clinic 2007:\t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are such a vile liar.
> 
> 
> The "Mayo Clinic" had nothing to do with that study
> The study by Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall specifically says the opposite of what you say- and you specifically lie- by leaving out the very next sentence that contradicts you- you are a vile liar.
> Silhouttes quote in yellow- what she left out in red- because she is a blatant liar
> The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20 times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men (using a prevalence rate of adult homosexuality of 2%-4%).5,7,10,19,29,30
> 
> This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, just that a larger percentage of pedophiles are homosexual or bisexual in orientation to children.
> 19
Click to expand...


Which Sil knows as she's tried to use this lie at least a dozen times. And anyone familiar with Sil's compulsive obsession to hurt gay people will see her offer the same bone stupid lie again later when she thinks no one who knows the truth will notice.

Sil is willing to even exploit abused children to propagate her lies. 'Vile' is a good word to describe it.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...assumes all gay men are pedophiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I just read about the propensity of gays to molest, that's all:
> 
> Mayo Clinic 2007:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range..and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles by whether they are attracted to only male children (*homosexual pedophilia*), female children (heterosexual pedophilia),or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia)....The percentage of homosexual pedophiles* ranges from 9% to 40%*, which is approximately 4 to 20  times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men.. http://www.drrichardhall
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...assumes all gay men are pedophiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I just read about the propensity of gays to molest, that's all:
> 
> Mayo Clinic 2007:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range..and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles by whether they are attracted to only male children (*homosexual pedophilia*), female children (heterosexual pedophilia),or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia)....The percentage of homosexual pedophiles* ranges from 9% to 40%*, which is approximately 4 to 20  times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay men account for around 2% of the population.  Yet they are responsible for up to 40% of all reported molestations of children.  Of note is their target demographic: boys.  And a phenomenon well known with reporting molestation in children is that boys are far more likely to under report being molested because of the stigma attached to being buggered.  So it's quite likely the propensity is closer to 40% or even above that for such a tiny tiny demographic doing all that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay men account for around 2% of the population.  Yet they are responsible for up to 40% of all reported molestations of children.
Click to expand...


And that's an out right lie. Gay men are men who are attracted other men. Homosexual pedophiles are people are adults that are attracted to children of the same sex.

You are equating the two. Your source is clear that they are NOT the same thing. As demonstrated by* the very next sentence* after your quote:



> This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, just that a larger percentage of pedophiles are homosexual or bisexual in orientation to children.
> 
> http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf



You know you're lying. You know *you're exploiting abused children* to propagate your lies. Norman would have been disgusted at what you are doing.


----------



## tyroneweaver

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Well my biological mother had four children by four different men, and my biological father had a few children out of wedlock, and I grew up with a Jewish Aunt and Unitarian Uncle that almost divorced many times over and I was reminded that I was the bastard child of my Aunt Half-Sister, so how does this having two parents of opposite sex suppose to work in your delusional world you live in?
> 
> Where were you to stop my biological mother and father from their sins?
> 
> Wait, they were heterosexual so who gives a damn, right?
> 
> So pardon me but fuck you, your poll, and again fuck you!
> 
> If a kid has two loving beings that raise them to know wrong from right and it is Adam and Steve or Butch and Lipstick Mom then I could give a flying fuck because I have known many heterosexual parents that should not have been allowed to breed, and before you write about those that made me, well I told them that to their fucking face, so there you have it!


And thru all this you learned civility and not have a chip  on your shoulder


----------



## Silhouette

Inevitable said:


> ...assumes all gay men are pedophiles.



No, I just read about the propensity of gays to molest, that's all:

Mayo Clinic 2007:



> Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range..and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles by whether they are attracted to only male children (*homosexual pedophilia*), female children (heterosexual pedophilia),or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia)....The percentage of homosexual pedophiles* ranges from 9% to 40%*, which is approximately 4 to 20  times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men.. http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf



Gay men account for around 2% of the population.  Yet they are responsible for up to 40% of all reported molestations of children.  Of note is their target demographic: boys.  And a phenomenon well known with reporting molestation in children is that boys are far more likely to under report being molested because of the stigma attached to being buggered.  So it's quite likely the propensity is closer to 40% or even above that for such a tiny tiny demographic doing all that.


Inevitable said:


> It certainly doesn't follow.



Sure it does.  Are you saying the Mayo Clinic is lying?


----------



## Debra K

Silhouette said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...assumes all gay men are pedophiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I just read about the propensity of gays to molest, that's all:
> 
> Mayo Clinic 2007:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range..and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles by whether they are attracted to only male children (*homosexual pedophilia*), female children (heterosexual pedophilia),or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia)....The percentage of homosexual pedophiles* ranges from 9% to 40%*, which is approximately 4 to 20  times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men.. http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay men account for around 2% of the population.  Yet they are responsible for up to 40% of all reported molestations of children.  Of note is their target demographic: boys.  And a phenomenon well known with reporting molestation in children is that boys are far more likely to under report being molested because of the stigma attached to being buggered.  So it's quite likely the propensity is closer to 40% or even above that for such a tiny tiny demographic doing all that.
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly doesn't follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it does.  Are you saying the Mayo Clinic is lying?
Click to expand...


Have you read the book "How to Lie with Statistics"?  It outlines "errors when it comes to the interpretation of statistics".  

How to Lie with Statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps you should acquire that book so you may learn how to interpret statistics.   It appears, however, that you're lying to yourself more than you're lying to the rest of us.  Perhaps, if you were not blinded by your hate, you could see and think more clearly.  One of the things that cloud your thinking is your unhealthy obsession to demean and harm an entire class of people.


----------



## Debra K

Sil, in her willfully-blind, hate-induced state of existence, seeks to spread pernicious lies. 



> An especially pernicious myth is that most adults who sexually abuse children are gay. A number of researchers have looked at this question to determine if homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, and the data indicate that's not the case.
> 
> For example, in a 1989 study led by Kurt Freund of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Canada, scientists showed pictures of children to adult gay and straight males, and measured sexual arousal. Homosexual men reacted no more strongly to pictures of male children than heterosexual men reacted to pictures of female children.
> 
> A 1994 study, led by Carole Jenny of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, surveyed 269 cases of children who were sexually molested by adults. In 82 percent of cases, the allegedoffender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of thechild, the researchers reported in the journal Pediatrics*.* In only two out of 269 cases, the offender was identified asbeing gay or lesbian.
> 
> "The empirical research does _not_ show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children," wrote Gregory M. Herek, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Davis, on his website. Herek, who was not involved in the 1989 or 1994 studies, compiled a review of research on the topic.



Source:  5 Myths About Gay People Debunked


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...assumes all gay men are pedophiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I just read about the propensity of gays to molest, that's all:
> 
> Mayo Clinic 2007:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range..and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles by whether they are attracted to only male children (*homosexual pedophilia*), female children (heterosexual pedophilia),or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia)....The percentage of homosexual pedophiles* ranges from 9% to 40%*, which is approximately 4 to 20  times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men.. http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay men account for around 2% of the population.  Yet they are responsible for up to 40% of all reported molestations of children.  Of note is their target demographic: boys.  And a phenomenon well known with reporting molestation in children is that boys are far more likely to under report being molested because of the stigma attached to being buggered.  So it's quite likely the propensity is closer to 40% or even above that for such a tiny tiny demographic doing all that.
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly doesn't follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it does.  Are you saying the Mayo Clinic is lying?
Click to expand...


No, you're just a horrible, vile liar. As in the very next sentence after your quote, your own source explicitly contradicts you:



> This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, just that a larger percentage of pedophiles are homosexual or bisexual in orientation to children.
> 
> http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf



Trying to exploit the victims of molestation to further your lies? That's loathsome Jen.



> Sure it does. Are you saying the Mayo Clinic is lying?



Nope, just you. Not only does your own source contradict you explicitly...that's not even the Mayo Clinic.

You can't stop yourself. You have to lie. Your compulsive obsession is utterly beyond your control.


----------



## Skylar

Debra K said:


> Sil, in her willfully-blind, hate-induced state of existence, seeks to spread pernicious lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An especially pernicious myth is that most adults who sexually abuse children are gay. A number of researchers have looked at this question to determine if homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, and the data indicate that's not the case.
> 
> For example, in a 1989 study led by Kurt Freund of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Canada, scientists showed pictures of children to adult gay and straight males, and measured sexual arousal. Homosexual men reacted no more strongly to pictures of male children than heterosexual men reacted to pictures of female children.
> 
> A 1994 study, led by Carole Jenny of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, surveyed 269 cases of children who were sexually molested by adults. In 82 percent of cases, the allegedoffender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of thechild, the researchers reported in the journal Pediatrics*.* In only two out of 269 cases, the offender was identified asbeing gay or lesbian.
> 
> "The empirical research does _not_ show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children," wrote Gregory M. Herek, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Davis, on his website. Herek, who was not involved in the 1989 or 1994 studies, compiled a review of research on the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source:  5 Myths About Gay People Debunked
Click to expand...


That's not willful blindness. The paper she's citing makes it very clear that nothing she's alleged is true.

She's intentionally lying. Jen is using the victimized children of molestation to lie. And she's fully aware of how deceptive she's being, how horrid her lies are as she does it. 

She simply can't stop herself. Her compulsion to attack gays is simply far stronger than any sense of integrity or humanity. Her mental illness is consuming her.


----------



## Skylar

Debra K said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...assumes all gay men are pedophiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I just read about the propensity of gays to molest, that's all:
> 
> Mayo Clinic 2007:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range..and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles by whether they are attracted to only male children (*homosexual pedophilia*), female children (heterosexual pedophilia),or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia)....The percentage of homosexual pedophiles* ranges from 9% to 40%*, which is approximately 4 to 20  times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men.. http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay men account for around 2% of the population.  Yet they are responsible for up to 40% of all reported molestations of children.  Of note is their target demographic: boys.  And a phenomenon well known with reporting molestation in children is that boys are far more likely to under report being molested because of the stigma attached to being buggered.  So it's quite likely the propensity is closer to 40% or even above that for such a tiny tiny demographic doing all that.
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly doesn't follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it does.  Are you saying the Mayo Clinic is lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read the book "How to Lie with Statistics"?  It outlines "errors when it comes to the interpretation of statistics".
> 
> How to Lie with Statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Perhaps you should acquire that book so you may learn how to interpret statistics.   It appears, however, that you're lying to yourself more than you're lying to the rest of us.  Perhaps, if you were not blinded by your hate, you could see and think more clearly.  One of the things that cloud your thinking is your unhealthy obsession to demean and harm an entire class of people.
Click to expand...


There's no 'misintepreting the statistics'. In  the *very next sentence* after the ones she quoted, her own source says this:



> This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, just that a larger percentage of pedophiles are homosexual or bisexual in orientation to children.
> 
> http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf



She has to cut and paste around that sentence every time she posts her lies. She's fully aware that her source backs nothing she's saying. She even knows that its not the Mayo Clinic.

She's simply hoping to find someone who doesn't......and convince them of her lies.


----------



## Silhouette

Debra K said:


> Sil, in her willfully-blind, hate-induced state of existence, seeks to spread pernicious lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An especially pernicious myth is that most adults who sexually abuse children are gay. A number of researchers have looked at this question to determine if homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, and the data indicate that's not the case.
Click to expand...


Let's do the math again.  OF ALL child molestation events, gays are responsible for up to 40% of those.  Since "all" represents 100% of the population combined of both heteros and homos, then homos being just 2% of the "all" doing up to 40% of "all" molestation means that if you are a gay you are extremely likely to have a propensity to molest children, weighed against your hetero counterparts.

To make things worse, men are responsible for about 90% of all molestation +/-  And gay men target boys of course.  Boys are the demographic between the two genders least likely to report the crime because of extreme shame and stigma attached to being buggered by a man ( source of  "gay" teen suicide?)  And if the molestation occurs often enough to a boy to habituate him to enjoying it sexually (a common issue with child molestation victims, and a source of their guilt/shame which often leads to suicide or suicidal lifestyles), that boy cannot get reparative therapy if he is unfortunate enough to live in either California or New Jersey..even if he himself elects it, wants it and knows his sexual "orientation" came from childhood abuse..

Once you're gay, you stay...or else...But as we all know, there are hundreds, if not thousands of coercive outfits doing outreach to "bi-curious youth" or "potentially closeted gay youth" seeking to tease the naturally curious adolescent mind over the borderline.  But that's OK to seek to change hetero to gay.  Just not the other way around.. Did I mention the propensity to molest (do inappropriate sexual coercion of youth) was higher in the gay population?

*propensity*: [pruh-pen-si-tee]
noun, plural propensities.
1.a natural inclination or tendency:


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, in her willfully-blind, hate-induced state of existence, seeks to spread pernicious lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An especially pernicious myth is that most adults who sexually abuse children are gay. A number of researchers have looked at this question to determine if homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, and the data indicate that's not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's do the math again.  OF ALL child molestation events, gays are responsible for up to 40% of those.  Since "all" represents 100% of the population combined of both heteros and homos, then homos being just 2% of the "all" doing up to 40% of "all" molestation means that if you are a gay you are extremely likely to have a propensity to molest children, weighed against your hetero counterparts.
Click to expand...


Stupid, obvious lies. The article you're citing makes a clear distinction between gay men (men who are attracted to men) and homosexual pedophiles (people attracted to children of their same gender). As you know....as you have to copy and paste *around* the article making these very clear distinctions every time you post. The bolded portions are those that you intentionally omit.



> *Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles by whether they are attracted to only male children (homosexual pedophilia), female children (heterosexual pedophilia), or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia)*.3,6,10,29 The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20 times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men (using a prevalence rate of adult homosexuality of 2%-4%).5,7,10,19,29,30 *This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, just that a larger percentage of pedophiles are homosexual or bisexual in orientation to children.*
> 
> http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf



You know that a gay man and a homosexual pedophile aren't the same thing. Your own article, in the very sentence absolutely obliterates your entire claim:



> *This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, just that a larger percentage of pedophiles are homosexual or bisexual in orientation to children.
> 
> *
> http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf



Why lie? Its not like we can't see the article and know you're lying through your teeth. And we've refuted the same stupid lie dozens of times. So you know you're lying. And you know we know.

What's the point then? All you're doing is demonstrating to NEW participants in the thread that you're a liar who can't be trusted. And worse, someone who is willing to exploit sexually abused children to do lie.



> To make things worse, men are responsible for about 90% of all molestation +/-  And gay men target boys of course.



*Your article never says this. *Jerry Sandusky for example was heterosexual (a man attracted to women) and a homosexual pedophile (a man attracted to boys).

Typing 'of course' isn't evidence. Show us in the article where gay men (men who are attracted to men) target boys. As Jerry Sandusky demonstrates, a pedophiles sexual orientation with adults isn't necessarily related to their orientation toward children.

You're making this shit up as you go along.


----------



## Silhouette

You do protest too much, you know...


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> *Your article never says this. *Jerry Sandusky for example was heterosexual (a man attracted to women) and a homosexual pedophile (a man attracted to boys).


So Sandusky married a woman but preferred sex with boys.  And that makes him heterosexual how?

I think this shows all the readers here just how far they can trust your "logic".  Even your ilk would insist that Sandusky was and is flatly and patently gay, and like so many other gay pedophiles, marry a woman as a cover and excuse and a means of getting trust to get closer to the boy children they're after..

Women married to pedophiles, especially gay ones report that their sex life is/was virtually nonexistent before they discover their husband's dirty little secret.  Usually after an arrest.  Sometimes they even know before but the shame is so excruciating that they opt to stay silent and try to bargain a change in the hopeless situation privately..eventually though they all come to the same realization: they were used by a creep to get closer to children and were nothing more than a venue for that goal..


----------



## Debra K

Silhouette said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, in her willfully-blind, hate-induced state of existence, seeks to spread pernicious lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An especially pernicious myth is that most adults who sexually abuse children are gay. A number of researchers have looked at this question to determine if homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, and the data indicate that's not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's do the math again.  OF ALL child molestation events, gays are responsible for up to 40% of those.  Since "all" represents 100% of the population . . . . [blah, blah, blah].
Click to expand...


The paper you referred to did not say what you allege it said.  It explicitly stated that child molestation was not the same as pedophilia.  The paper did not refer to ALL of anything.  The footnotes cite to other papers where the samplings varied and statistics varied. 

If you and I are the only two people in a sampling, and you hate gays and I do not hate gays, that does not mean that 50 percent of ALL people hate gays. 

Because you're clearly lying with statistics, the rest of your hate dissertation is both ridiculous and worthless.  It only highlights your irrational hate for an entire class of people.


----------



## Inevitable

Silhouette said:


> Sure it does.  Are you saying the Mayo Clinic is lying?


No, I'm saying that you are jumping to the conclusion that all male pedophiles that molest male victims are the two percent of men that identify as gay. Nice try in attempting to hide your dishonesty behind a mayo clinic statistic. But you must be a fool if you thought I wouldn't notice.


----------



## Inevitable

Silhouette said:


> Let's do the math again.  OF ALL child molestation events, gays are responsible for up to 40% of those. Since "all" represents 100% of the population combined of both heteros and homos, then homos being just 2% of the "all" doing up to 40% of "all" molestation means that if you are a gay you are extremely likely to have a propensity to molest children, weighed against your hetero counterparts.


Your math is flawed. First, 2% represents people who identify as gay. Men who molest boys normally identify as heterosexual. So they aren't counted in the two percent that identify as gay.


----------



## Inevitable

Silhouette said:


> You do protest too much, you know...


Not really. I'm just pointing out gaping holes in your argument.


----------



## Inevitable

Debra K said:


> Sil, in her willfully-blind, hate-induced state of existence, seeks to spread pernicious lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An especially pernicious myth is that most adults who sexually abuse children are gay. A number of researchers have looked at this question to determine if homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, and the data indicate that's not the case.
> 
> For example, in a 1989 study led by Kurt Freund of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Canada, scientists showed pictures of children to adult gay and straight males, and measured sexual arousal. Homosexual men reacted no more strongly to pictures of male children than heterosexual men reacted to pictures of female children.
> 
> A 1994 study, led by Carole Jenny of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, surveyed 269 cases of children who were sexually molested by adults. In 82 percent of cases, the allegedoffender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of thechild, the researchers reported in the journal Pediatrics*.* In only two out of 269 cases, the offender was identified asbeing gay or lesbian.
> 
> "The empirical research does _not_ show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children," wrote Gregory M. Herek, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Davis, on his website. Herek, who was not involved in the 1989 or 1994 studies, compiled a review of research on the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source:  5 Myths About Gay People Debunked
Click to expand...

The moron actually believes there is a conspiracy of gays out to get people.

There is no point in arguing with this shit. You can't reason with stupidity.

I think at this point we should just collectively mock her.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Inevitable said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, in her willfully-blind, hate-induced state of existence, seeks to spread pernicious lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An especially pernicious myth is that most adults who sexually abuse children are gay. A number of researchers have looked at this question to determine if homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, and the data indicate that's not the case.
> 
> For example, in a 1989 study led by Kurt Freund of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Canada, scientists showed pictures of children to adult gay and straight males, and measured sexual arousal. Homosexual men reacted no more strongly to pictures of male children than heterosexual men reacted to pictures of female children.
> 
> A 1994 study, led by Carole Jenny of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, surveyed 269 cases of children who were sexually molested by adults. In 82 percent of cases, the allegedoffender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of thechild, the researchers reported in the journal Pediatrics*.* In only two out of 269 cases, the offender was identified asbeing gay or lesbian.
> 
> "The empirical research does _not_ show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children," wrote Gregory M. Herek, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Davis, on his website. Herek, who was not involved in the 1989 or 1994 studies, compiled a review of research on the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source:  5 Myths About Gay People Debunked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moron actually believes there is a conspiracy of gays out to get people.
> 
> There is no point in arguing with this shit. You can't reason with stupidity.
> 
> *I think at this point we should just collectively mock her*.
Click to expand...


Sounds like a bunch of gays out to get someone


----------



## Inevitable

SassyIrishLass said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, in her willfully-blind, hate-induced state of existence, seeks to spread pernicious lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An especially pernicious myth is that most adults who sexually abuse children are gay. A number of researchers have looked at this question to determine if homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, and the data indicate that's not the case.
> 
> For example, in a 1989 study led by Kurt Freund of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Canada, scientists showed pictures of children to adult gay and straight males, and measured sexual arousal. Homosexual men reacted no more strongly to pictures of male children than heterosexual men reacted to pictures of female children.
> 
> A 1994 study, led by Carole Jenny of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, surveyed 269 cases of children who were sexually molested by adults. In 82 percent of cases, the allegedoffender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of thechild, the researchers reported in the journal Pediatrics*.* In only two out of 269 cases, the offender was identified asbeing gay or lesbian.
> 
> "The empirical research does _not_ show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children," wrote Gregory M. Herek, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Davis, on his website. Herek, who was not involved in the 1989 or 1994 studies, compiled a review of research on the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source:  5 Myths About Gay People Debunked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moron actually believes there is a conspiracy of gays out to get people.
> 
> There is no point in arguing with this shit. You can't reason with stupidity.
> 
> *I think at this point we should just collectively mock her*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like a bunch of gays out to get someone
Click to expand...

The pursuit of truth isn't a conspiracy. You don't have to be gay to pursue truth. You could be anybody. 

But yes the pursuit of truth is absolutely out to get deceit, slander, libel, and ignorance.

If you believe the pursuit of truth is a conspiracy that pretty much puts you in the other category.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Inevitable said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, in her willfully-blind, hate-induced state of existence, seeks to spread pernicious lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An especially pernicious myth is that most adults who sexually abuse children are gay. A number of researchers have looked at this question to determine if homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, and the data indicate that's not the case.
> 
> For example, in a 1989 study led by Kurt Freund of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Canada, scientists showed pictures of children to adult gay and straight males, and measured sexual arousal. Homosexual men reacted no more strongly to pictures of male children than heterosexual men reacted to pictures of female children.
> 
> A 1994 study, led by Carole Jenny of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, surveyed 269 cases of children who were sexually molested by adults. In 82 percent of cases, the allegedoffender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of thechild, the researchers reported in the journal Pediatrics*.* In only two out of 269 cases, the offender was identified asbeing gay or lesbian.
> 
> "The empirical research does _not_ show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children," wrote Gregory M. Herek, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Davis, on his website. Herek, who was not involved in the 1989 or 1994 studies, compiled a review of research on the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source:  5 Myths About Gay People Debunked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moron actually believes there is a conspiracy of gays out to get people.
> 
> There is no point in arguing with this shit. You can't reason with stupidity.
> 
> *I think at this point we should just collectively mock her*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like a bunch of gays out to get someone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The pursuit of truth isn't a conspiracy. You don't have to be gay to pursue truth. You child be anybody.
> 
> But yes the pursuit of truth is absolutely out to get deceit, slander, libel, and ignorance.
> 
> If you believe the pursuit of truth is a conspiracy that pretty much puts you in the other category.
Click to expand...


What?


----------



## Inevitable

SassyIrishLass said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, in her willfully-blind, hate-induced state of existence, seeks to spread pernicious lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An especially pernicious myth is that most adults who sexually abuse children are gay. A number of researchers have looked at this question to determine if homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, and the data indicate that's not the case.
> 
> For example, in a 1989 study led by Kurt Freund of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Canada, scientists showed pictures of children to adult gay and straight males, and measured sexual arousal. Homosexual men reacted no more strongly to pictures of male children than heterosexual men reacted to pictures of female children.
> 
> A 1994 study, led by Carole Jenny of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, surveyed 269 cases of children who were sexually molested by adults. In 82 percent of cases, the allegedoffender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of thechild, the researchers reported in the journal Pediatrics*.* In only two out of 269 cases, the offender was identified asbeing gay or lesbian.
> 
> "The empirical research does _not_ show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children," wrote Gregory M. Herek, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Davis, on his website. Herek, who was not involved in the 1989 or 1994 studies, compiled a review of research on the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source:  5 Myths About Gay People Debunked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moron actually believes there is a conspiracy of gays out to get people.
> 
> There is no point in arguing with this shit. You can't reason with stupidity.
> 
> *I think at this point we should just collectively mock her*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like a bunch of gays out to get someone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The pursuit of truth isn't a conspiracy. You don't have to be gay to pursue truth. You child be anybody.
> 
> But yes the pursuit of truth is absolutely out to get deceit, slander, libel, and ignorance.
> 
> If you believe the pursuit of truth is a conspiracy that pretty much puts you in the other category.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?
Click to expand...

The pursuit of truth isn't a conspiracy. You don't have to be gay to pursue truth. You could be anybody.

But yes the pursuit of truth is absolutely out to get deceit, slander, libel, and ignorance.

If you believe the pursuit of truth is a conspiracy that pretty much puts you in the other category.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Inevitable said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, in her willfully-blind, hate-induced state of existence, seeks to spread pernicious lies.
> 
> Source:  5 Myths About Gay People Debunked
> 
> 
> 
> The moron actually believes there is a conspiracy of gays out to get people.
> 
> There is no point in arguing with this shit. You can't reason with stupidity.
> 
> *I think at this point we should just collectively mock her*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like a bunch of gays out to get someone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The pursuit of truth isn't a conspiracy. You don't have to be gay to pursue truth. You child be anybody.
> 
> But yes the pursuit of truth is absolutely out to get deceit, slander, libel, and ignorance.
> 
> If you believe the pursuit of truth is a conspiracy that pretty much puts you in the other category.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The pursuit of truth isn't a conspiracy. You don't have to be gay to pursue truth. You could be anybody.
> 
> But yes the pursuit of truth is absolutely out to get deceit, slander, libel, and ignorance.
> 
> If you believe the pursuit of truth is a conspiracy that pretty much puts you in the other category.
Click to expand...


What does that gibberish have to do with your call to mock someone?


----------



## Inevitable

SassyIrishLass said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The moron actually believes there is a conspiracy of gays out to get people.
> 
> There is no point in arguing with this shit. You can't reason with stupidity.
> 
> *I think at this point we should just collectively mock her*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a bunch of gays out to get someone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The pursuit of truth isn't a conspiracy. You don't have to be gay to pursue truth. You child be anybody.
> 
> But yes the pursuit of truth is absolutely out to get deceit, slander, libel, and ignorance.
> 
> If you believe the pursuit of truth is a conspiracy that pretty much puts you in the other category.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The pursuit of truth isn't a conspiracy. You don't have to be gay to pursue truth. You could be anybody.
> 
> But yes the pursuit of truth is absolutely out to get deceit, slander, libel, and ignorance.
> 
> If you believe the pursuit of truth is a conspiracy that pretty much puts you in the other category.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that gibberish have to do with your call to mock someone?
Click to expand...

It's actually English, not gibberish. I assume you understand English seeing as you type it.


Okay I'll simplify.

We should mock liars. If they are mocked lies don't spread.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Inevitable said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a bunch of gays out to get someone
> 
> 
> 
> The pursuit of truth isn't a conspiracy. You don't have to be gay to pursue truth. You child be anybody.
> 
> But yes the pursuit of truth is absolutely out to get deceit, slander, libel, and ignorance.
> 
> If you believe the pursuit of truth is a conspiracy that pretty much puts you in the other category.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The pursuit of truth isn't a conspiracy. You don't have to be gay to pursue truth. You could be anybody.
> 
> But yes the pursuit of truth is absolutely out to get deceit, slander, libel, and ignorance.
> 
> If you believe the pursuit of truth is a conspiracy that pretty much puts you in the other category.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that gibberish have to do with your call to mock someone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's actually English, not gibberish. I assume you understand English seeing as you type it.
> 
> 
> Okay I'll simplify.
> 
> We should mock liars. If they are mocked lies don't spread.
Click to expand...



I suppose...but ganging up to mock someone is cowardly


----------



## Inevitable

SassyIrishLass said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pursuit of truth isn't a conspiracy. You don't have to be gay to pursue truth. You child be anybody.
> 
> But yes the pursuit of truth is absolutely out to get deceit, slander, libel, and ignorance.
> 
> If you believe the pursuit of truth is a conspiracy that pretty much puts you in the other category.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The pursuit of truth isn't a conspiracy. You don't have to be gay to pursue truth. You could be anybody.
> 
> But yes the pursuit of truth is absolutely out to get deceit, slander, libel, and ignorance.
> 
> If you believe the pursuit of truth is a conspiracy that pretty much puts you in the other category.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that gibberish have to do with your call to mock someone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's actually English, not gibberish. I assume you understand English seeing as you type it.
> 
> 
> Okay I'll simplify.
> 
> We should mock liars. If they are mocked lies don't spread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose...but ganging up to mock someone is cowardly
Click to expand...

No it's appropriate. If you don't mock lies today they will become truth tomorrow. I'm not saying we should mock any person on a personal level, just the profundity if the ignorance in statements.

If you can't bear your stupidity being mocked than you should educate yourself, that's the idea.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Inevitable said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> The pursuit of truth isn't a conspiracy. You don't have to be gay to pursue truth. You could be anybody.
> 
> But yes the pursuit of truth is absolutely out to get deceit, slander, libel, and ignorance.
> 
> If you believe the pursuit of truth is a conspiracy that pretty much puts you in the other category.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that gibberish have to do with your call to mock someone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's actually English, not gibberish. I assume you understand English seeing as you type it.
> 
> 
> Okay I'll simplify.
> 
> We should mock liars. If they are mocked lies don't spread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose...but ganging up to mock someone is cowardly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it's appropriate. If you don't mock lies today they will become truth tomorrow. I'm not saying we should mock any person on a personal level, just the profundity if the ignorance in statements.
> 
> If you can't bear your stupidity being mocked than you should educate yourself, that's the idea.
Click to expand...


I suspect you get mocked frequently


----------



## Inevitable

SassyIrishLass said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pursuit of truth isn't a conspiracy. You don't have to be gay to pursue truth. You could be anybody.
> 
> But yes the pursuit of truth is absolutely out to get deceit, slander, libel, and ignorance.
> 
> If you believe the pursuit of truth is a conspiracy that pretty much puts you in the other category.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that gibberish have to do with your call to mock someone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's actually English, not gibberish. I assume you understand English seeing as you type it.
> 
> 
> Okay I'll simplify.
> 
> We should mock liars. If they are mocked lies don't spread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose...but ganging up to mock someone is cowardly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it's appropriate. If you don't mock lies today they will become truth tomorrow. I'm not saying we should mock any person on a personal level, just the profundity if the ignorance in statements.
> 
> If you can't bear your stupidity being mocked than you should educate yourself, that's the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect you get mocked frequently
Click to expand...

Well liars attempt. Normally I just smile and shrug.


----------



## Arianrhod

SassyIrishLass said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pursuit of truth isn't a conspiracy. You don't have to be gay to pursue truth. You could be anybody.
> 
> But yes the pursuit of truth is absolutely out to get deceit, slander, libel, and ignorance.
> 
> If you believe the pursuit of truth is a conspiracy that pretty much puts you in the other category.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that gibberish have to do with your call to mock someone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's actually English, not gibberish. I assume you understand English seeing as you type it.
> 
> 
> Okay I'll simplify.
> 
> We should mock liars. If they are mocked lies don't spread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose...but ganging up to mock someone is cowardly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it's appropriate. If you don't mock lies today they will become truth tomorrow. I'm not saying we should mock any person on a personal level, just the profundity if the ignorance in statements.
> 
> If you can't bear your stupidity being mocked than you should educate yourself, that's the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect you get mocked frequently
Click to expand...


So you support liars?  Not surprising.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your article never says this. *Jerry Sandusky for example was heterosexual (a man attracted to women) and a homosexual pedophile (a man attracted to boys).
> 
> 
> 
> So Sandusky married a woman but preferred sex with boys.  And that makes him heterosexual how?
Click to expand...


If you'd ever bothered to actually read the article you cited, this answer is obvious:



			
				A Profile of Pedophilia by RYAN C. W. HALL  AND RICHARD C. W. HALL said:
			
		

> "Pedophiles are subdivided into several classifications. *One of the first distinctions made when classifying pedophiles is to determine whether they are “exclusively” attracted to children (exclusive pedophile) or attracted to adults as well as children (nonexclusive pedophile). *In a study by Abel and Harlow15 of 2429 adult male pedophiles, only 7% identified themselves as exclusively sexually attracted to children, which confirms the general view that most pedophiles are part of the nonexclusive group."
> 
> http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf



Being attracted to adults AND attracted to children was the case in 93% of pedophiles. Sandusky was attracted to adult women....and male children. He was a heterosexual. And a homosexual pedophile.

You insist that a homosexual pedophile is only gay men. *Your source never says this. *It in fact explicitly contradicts your conclusion that homosexual pedophiles are gay men:



			
				A Profile of Pedophilia by RYAN C. W. HALL  AND RICHARD C. W. HALL said:
			
		

> "This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, just that a larger percentage of pedophiles are homosexual or bisexual in orientation to children"
> 
> http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf



*Which you also know. *But you're obsessively compelled to lie about. And thus blatantly and repeatedly misrepresent your own source. Despite the fact that we've corrected you at least a dozen times.

Your a liar. And you know you're a liar. And now, so does everyone else.



> I think this shows all the readers here just how far they can trust your "logic".  Even your ilk would insist that Sandusky was and is flatly and patently gay, and like so many other gay pedophiles, marry a woman as a cover and excuse and a means of getting trust to get closer to the boy children they're after..



Nope. That would be you....ignoring your own sources which confirm that 93% of pedophiles are ALSO attracted to adults. Sandusky is a heterosexual male who is a homosexual pedophile.

If you'd bothered to read more than the 2 sentences of your source you could lie about, you wouldn't have made such an obvious blunder. As you just demonstrated that in addition to being a flagrant, habitual liar about this topic.......you're also awful at reading and comprehending your own source.


----------



## Skylar

Debra K said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sil, in her willfully-blind, hate-induced state of existence, seeks to spread pernicious lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An especially pernicious myth is that most adults who sexually abuse children are gay. A number of researchers have looked at this question to determine if homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, and the data indicate that's not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's do the math again.  OF ALL child molestation events, gays are responsible for up to 40% of those.  Since "all" represents 100% of the population . . . . [blah, blah, blah].
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The paper you referred to did not say what you allege it said.  It explicitly stated that child molestation was not the same as pedophilia.  The paper did not refer to ALL of anything.  The footnotes cite to other papers where the samplings varied and statistics varied.
> 
> If you and I are the only two people in a sampling, and you hate gays and I do not hate gays, that does not mean that 50 percent of ALL people hate gays.
> 
> Because you're clearly lying with statistics, the rest of your hate dissertation is both ridiculous and worthless.  It only highlights your irrational hate for an entire class of people.
Click to expand...


Jen knows this. This isn't some misunderstanding. We've literally shredded this exact same blatant lie of hers a dozen times. She knows *exactly* what her sources says on the matter. She simply chooses to habitually and repeatedly lie on the topic in the hopes of convincing someone who isn't aware of her reputation or the source she's citing.


----------



## Silhouette

Post 1,000 and we still have 90% of people thinking it's important they have both a mother and father.  Too bad that never happens in gay marraige...


----------



## Inevitable

Silhouette said:


> Post 1,000 and we still have 90% of people thinking it's important they have both a mother and father.  Too bad that never happens in gay marraige...


Really? Funny my friends that are lesbians have three children and have regular contact with their father, on a daily basis.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Post 1,000 and we still have 90% of people thinking it's important they have both a mother and father.  Too bad that never happens in gay marraige...



Post 1000 and Silhouette is still lying.

Silhouette- do you support incestuous marriage?

Its okay- you can lie about that too....


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Post 1,000 and we still have 90% of people thinking it's important they have both a mother and father.  Too bad that never happens in gay marraige...





Syriusly said:


> Post 1000 and Silhouette is still lying.
> 
> Silhouette- do you support incestuous marriage?
> 
> Its okay- you can lie about that too....


You have asked and I have answered that question.  No I don't.  But what relevance does what I support (or the majority supports) or doesn't when "marriage equality" is now the law of the land for ALL sexual orientations, not just your pet favorite?

Do you support polygamy marriage?  And, more importantly, do you believe that it is legal right now, today?  Why or why not?  Please cite the 14th Amendment in your answer...


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Post 1,000 and we still have 90% of people thinking it's important they have both a mother and father.  Too bad that never happens in gay marraige...




Post 1001....and you're still trying to misrepresent a strawpoll that doesn't even mention marriage as being against same sex marriage.

You can't even help yourself at this point....can you?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post 1,000 and we still have 90% of people thinking it's important they have both a mother and father.  Too bad that never happens in gay marraige...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post 1000 and Silhouette is still lying.
> 
> Silhouette- do you support incestuous marriage?
> 
> Its okay- you can lie about that too....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have asked and I have answered that question.  No I don't.  But what relevance does what I support (or the majority supports) or doesn't when "marriage equality" is now the law of the land for ALL sexual orientations, not just your pet favorite?
Click to expand...


polygamy isn't a 'sexual orientation'. incest isn't a 'sexual orientation'.

Try again.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> polygamy isn't a 'sexual orientation'. incest isn't a 'sexual orientation'.
> 
> Try again.



The desire to have sex in a specific way with specific people is in fact a sexual orientation.  Polygamists could no more restrain themselves from the desire for multiple partners and incest could no more restrain itself from sleeping with family members (remember their slogan "Incest is best") than a homosexual could from having sex with the same gender.  They are all sexual habituations or "orientations" defined..

...So no dodge of the question allowed.  Do you support polygamy marriage?  And more importantly do you believe it is legal right now?  If not, please cite the 14th Amendment to tell me why not..


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> polygamy isn't a 'sexual orientation'. incest isn't a 'sexual orientation'.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The desire to have sex in a specific way with specific people is in fact a sexual orientation.  Polygamists could no more restrain themselves from the desire for multiple partners and incest could no more restrain itself from sleeping with family members (remember their slogan "Incest is best") than a homosexual could from having sex with the same gender.  They are all sexual habituations or "orientations" defined..
> 
> ...So no dodge of the question allowed.  Do you support polygamy marriage?  And more importantly do you believe it is legal right now?  If not, please cite the 14th Amendment to tell me why not..
Click to expand...



And who says that incest is a sexual orientation? Or that polygamy is? There's you citing yourself.....and....who?

Worse for your pseudo-legal gibberish....show us where the basis of the right to marry in the Obergefell decision was sexual orientation. 

You can't. There's nothing in Obergefell that mandates that same sex couples be gay. Or opposite sex couples be straight. Obergefell merely forbids the States from refusing to issue marriage certificates based on the genders of the couple that want to marry.

Good luck telling us polygamy is a gender.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Skylar said:


> And who says that incest is a sexual orientation?



  How is it not?

  What makes homosexuality different from incest, such that one is a “sexual orientation”, and the other is not?


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who says that incest is a sexual orientation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it not?
> 
> What makes homosexuality different from incest, such that one is a “sexual orientation”, and the other is not?
Click to expand...


The meaning of the word:



> Sexual orientation:
> 
> n. a person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.
> 
> Google



And of course, the Obergefell ruling doesn't recognize the right to marry is based on the sexual orientation of those involved. Merely that States can't refuse to issue a marriage license to a couple because of their genders.

So Sil's entire line of argument is moot.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post 1,000 and we still have 90% of people thinking it's important they have both a mother and father.  Too bad that never happens in gay marraige...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post 1000 and Silhouette is still lying.
> 
> Silhouette- do you support incestuous marriage?
> 
> Its okay- you can lie about that too....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have asked and I have answered that question.  No I don't. ..
Click to expand...


I asked the question for a purpose.

You have said that marriage is a contract between a man and a woman and their children- why wouldn't an incestuous meet your invented 'marriage contract'?

An incestuous couple does not 'violate' any of the objections you have made to two persons of the same gender marrying.

Why do you object to incestuous marriage?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post 1,000 and we still have 90% of people thinking it's important they have both a mother and father.  Too bad that never happens in gay marraige...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post 1000 and Silhouette is still lying.
> 
> Silhouette- do you support incestuous marriage?
> 
> Its okay- you can lie about that too....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you support polygamy marriage?  And, more importantly, do you believe that it is legal right now, today?  Why or why not?  Please cite the 14th Amendment in your answer...
Click to expand...


I don't either support- or object to polygamous marriage. 

Polygamous marriage is illegal because it is against the law.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> polygamy isn't a 'sexual orientation'. incest isn't a 'sexual orientation'.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The desire to have sex in a specific way with specific people is in fact a sexual orientation.t..
Click to expand...


Nope.

Sexual orientation is based upon sexual attraction. 

Not desire to have sex.

Once again you are just making crap up.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who says that incest is a sexual orientation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes homosexuality different from incest, such that one is a “sexual orientation”, and the other is not?
Click to expand...


Homosexuality is an attraction to someone of the same gender.
Incest is sex between two closely related family members.

Among the differences the first is an inclination- the second is an actual act- that is illegal.


----------



## Silhouette

Bob Blaylock said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who says that incest is a sexual orientation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes homosexuality different from incest, such that one is a “sexual orientation”, and the other is not?
Click to expand...




Syriusly said:


> Homosexuality is an attraction to someone of the same gender.
> Incest is sex between two closely related family members.
> 
> Among the differences the first is an inclination- the second is an actual act- that is illegal.



Incest is the attraction to blood relatives.  Polygamy is the attraction to multiple partners.  

Nice try Syriusly to make your sexual orientation/fetish "more important legally" than others... 

FAIL.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who says that incest is a sexual orientation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes homosexuality different from incest, such that one is a “sexual orientation”, and the other is not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is an attraction to someone of the same gender.
> Incest is sex between two closely related family members.
> 
> Among the differences the first is an inclination- the second is an actual act- that is illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incest is the attraction to blood relatives.  Polygamy is the attraction to multiple partners.
> 
> Nice try Syriusly to make your sexual orientation/fetish "more important legally" than others...
> 
> FAIL.
Click to expand...


The basis of the Obergefell ruling wasn't sexual orientation. It was gender. Making your imaginary distinctions between incest and polygamy irrelevant.

There's a reason why your pseudo-legal gibberish never has a thing to do with any legal outcome: you simply don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who says that incest is a sexual orientation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes homosexuality different from incest, such that one is a “sexual orientation”, and the other is not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is an attraction to someone of the same gender.
> Incest is sex between two closely related family members.
> 
> Among the differences the first is an inclination- the second is an actual act- that is illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incest is the attraction to blood relatives.  Polygamy is the attraction to multiple partners.
> .
Click to expand...



Incest is sex between blood relatives
Polygamy is marriage with multiple partners.
Both are acts

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual orientations- not actions. 

That you cannot tell the difference between a man having sex with his daughter- and 21 year old man being attracted to other men- is both disgusting- and not surprising.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Syriusly said:


> Incest is sex between blood relatives
> Polygamy is marriage with multiple partners.
> Both are acts
> 
> Homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual orientations- not actions.
> 
> That you cannot tell the difference between a man having sex with his daughter- and 21 year old man being attracted to other men- is both disgusting- and not surprising.



  You're being willfully dishonest, creating a distinction that doesn't exist.

  All of these are deviant desires, on which one may be tempted to act.

  A man may be sexually-attracted to his daughter.

  A man may be sexually-attracted to another man.

  Either man may or may not act on these attractions.

  There is no meaningful difference between a man who has one deviant sexual attraction, and a man who has another, if both do not act on them.

  There is no meaningful difference between a man who acts on one deviant sexual attraction, and a man who acts on another.

  Ultimately, both are just variations on the same thing.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incest is sex between blood relatives
> Polygamy is marriage with multiple partners.
> Both are acts
> 
> Homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual orientations- not actions.
> 
> That you cannot tell the difference between a man having sex with his daughter- and 21 year old man being attracted to other men- is both disgusting- and not surprising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're being willfully dishonest, creating a distinction that doesn't exist.
> 
> All of these are deviant desires, on which one may be tempted to act.
> 
> A man may be sexually-attracted to his daughter.
> 
> A man may be sexually-attracted to another man.
> 
> Either man may or may not act on these attractions.
> 
> There is no meaningful difference between a man who has one deviant sexual attraction, and a man who has another, if both do not act on them.
> .
Click to expand...




Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incest is sex between blood relatives
> Polygamy is marriage with multiple partners.
> Both are acts
> 
> Homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual orientations- not actions.
> 
> That you cannot tell the difference between a man having sex with his daughter- and 21 year old man being attracted to other men- is both disgusting- and not surprising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're being willfully dishonest, creating a distinction that doesn't exist.
> .
Click to expand...

Incest is sex between blood relatives
Polygamy is marriage with multiple partners.
Both are acts

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual orientations- not actions.

No- the one being willfully dishonest is of course you.

As I said- 
Incest is sex between blood relatives
Polygamy is marriage with multiple partners.
Both are acts

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual orientations- not actions.

Sexual attraction is different from sexual actions.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incest is sex between blood relatives
> Polygamy is marriage with multiple partners.
> Both are acts
> 
> Homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual orientations- not actions.
> 
> That you cannot tell the difference between a man having sex with his daughter- and 21 year old man being attracted to other men- is both disgusting- and not surprising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, both are just variations on the same thing.
Click to expand...


Sex with a relative is illegal- and quite often abusive
Sex between two non-related adults is not illegal and usually not abusive.

All sex is in the broader sense variations on the same thing. 

I personally think that sex between a 50 year old man and his 18 year old daughter to be considerably different than sex between a 50 year old man and an unrelated 18 year old man or woman.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Syriusly said:


> Incest is sex between blood relatives
> Polygamy is marriage with multiple partners.
> Both are acts
> 
> Homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual orientations- not actions.
> 
> No- the one being willfully dishonest is of course you.
> 
> As I said-
> Incest is sex between blood relatives
> Polygamy is marriage with multiple partners.
> Both are acts
> 
> Homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual orientations- not actions.
> 
> Sexual attraction is different from sexual actions.



  The desire to engage in sexual behavior with someone of the same sex as yourself may be an “orientation”, but actually doing it is an action.  Just like a father having sex with his daughter.

  Again, you're being willfully dishonest, trying to argue that homosexuality is different than incest, by treating homosexuality as the desire, and incest as the action, in order to make an intentionally-invalid comparison.

  A father who is sexually-attracted to his daughter, but doesn't act on it, is comparable to a man who is sexually-attracted to another man, and doesn't act on it.

  A father who engages in sexual behavior with his daughter is comparable to a man who engages in sexual behavior with another man.

  It is not valid to compare someone who has a desire to engage in deviant sexual behavior, but who does not act on that desire, with someone else who actually does engage in deviant sexual behavior.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incest is sex between blood relatives
> Polygamy is marriage with multiple partners.
> Both are acts
> 
> Homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual orientations- not actions.
> 
> No- the one being willfully dishonest is of course you.
> 
> As I said-
> Incest is sex between blood relatives
> Polygamy is marriage with multiple partners.
> Both are acts
> 
> Homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual orientations- not actions.
> 
> Sexual attraction is different from sexual actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The desire to engage in sexual behavior with someone of the same sex as yourself may be an “orientation”, but actually doing it is an action.  Just like a father having sex with his daughter..
Click to expand...


Except one of those actions is illegal- and one is not.

Silhouette wants to equate actions- incest and polygamy- with sexual orientation- homosexuality and heterosexuality.

And they are not the same.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incest is sex between blood relatives
> Polygamy is marriage with multiple partners.
> Both are acts
> 
> Homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual orientations- not actions.
> 
> No- the one being willfully dishonest is of course you.
> 
> As I said-
> Incest is sex between blood relatives
> Polygamy is marriage with multiple partners.
> Both are acts
> 
> Homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual orientations- not actions.
> 
> Sexual attraction is different from sexual actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're being willfully dishonest, trying to argue that homosexuality is different than incest,.
Click to expand...


Once again you are being dishonest
Homosexuality and heterosexuality both are defined by attractions to a specific gender- not by any action

Incest is an action- that is illegal. It is not an sexual orientation. 

It is like saying greed is the same thing as theft.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Syriusly said:


> Except one of those actions is illegal- and one is not.



  Both are equally immoral and deviant.  That the law recognizes one as “acceptable” and the other as not, only shows how inconsistent and irrational the law can sometimes be.  And if present trends continue, toward normalizing and accepting sexual immorality, then surely we will see the time when incest will be just as legal, and just as normalized, as homosexuality.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incest is sex between blood relatives
> Polygamy is marriage with multiple partners.
> Both are acts
> 
> Homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual orientations- not actions.
> 
> That you cannot tell the difference between a man having sex with his daughter- and 21 year old man being attracted to other men- is both disgusting- and not surprising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're being willfully dishonest, creating a distinction that doesn't exist.
> 
> All of these are deviant desires, on which one may be tempted to act.
Click to expand...


If by one, you mean the *same* one, generally speaking folks pick a favorite.



> There is no meaningful difference between a man who has one deviant sexual attraction, and a man who has another, if both do not act on them.



So there is no meaningful difference between say.....oral sex....and child molestation? You may not be able to discern a difference....but a rational person could.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except one of those actions is illegal- and one is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both are equally immoral and deviant.
Click to expand...


Immoral and deviant _according to who_?

Bob, you're just offering us the same bone stupid 'Begging the Question' fallacy that you always do.  You arbitrarily label something. And then demand that we must judge it by your label.

Um, no. There's no such mandate. And you can't make a rational argument for homosexuality being immoral. 'Deviant'? That's just different than normal. By that standard, being left handed is 'deviant'. Being blue eyed is 'deviant'. Being circumsized is 'deviant'.



> That the law recognizes one as “acceptable” and the other as not, only shows how inconsistent and irrational the law can sometimes be.  And if present trends continue, toward normalizing and accepting sexual immorality, then surely we will see the time when incest will be just as legal, and just as normalized, as homosexuality.



Inconsistent with what? Your personal opinion? Remember, an act doesn't become 'immoral' because you imagine it is. And you can provide no rational basis for your claim.

And why would a rational person care if a law is inconsistent _with your  personal opinion._ Um, bob.....you're nobody.


----------



## Skylar

Back in the 60s interracial sex was considered 'deviant' and 'immoral'. By your standards, Bob...the moment we decriminalized interracial sex, incest was on the table. Because if you accept one 'deviant, immoral' behavior, you have to accept them all.

Two problems with your reasoning. First, calling something 'immoral' and 'deviant' doesn't make it so. Second, your logic doesn't follow. As interracial sex has nothing to do with incest. Or pedophilia. Or homosexuality, for that matter.

Your argument's flaws are structural. You haven't yet learned *how* to reason. Somebody  did you a grave disservice in convincing you that something must be true because you believe it.

As your personal belief alone is the basis of every argument you make. And no one gives a shit what you believe.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except one of those actions is illegal- and one is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both are equally immoral and deviant.  That the law recognizes one as “acceptable” and the other as not,
Click to expand...


According to who? 

You?

You are no different than the moralist who tells us that sex between a black woman and a white woman is 'immoral and deviant'.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except one of those actions is illegal- and one is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both are equally immoral and deviant.  That the law recognizes one as “acceptable” and the other as not, only shows how inconsistent and irrational the law can sometimes be.  And if present trends continue, toward normalizing and accepting sexual immorality, then surely we will see the time when incest will be just as legal, and just as normalized, as homosexuality.
Click to expand...


Poor Bob- according to him society has gone steadily down hill since we stopped stoning adulterers.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except one of those actions is illegal- and one is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both are equally immoral and deviant.  That the law recognizes one as “acceptable” and the other as not, only shows how inconsistent and irrational the law can sometimes be.  And if present trends continue, toward normalizing and accepting sexual immorality, then surely we will see the time when incest will be just as legal, and just as normalized, as homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor Bob- according to him society has gone steadily down hill since we stopped stoning adulterers.
Click to expand...


You let one 'immoral' and 'deviant' behavior go....you have to let them all I guess. At least according to Bob.


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except one of those actions is illegal- and one is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both are equally immoral and deviant.  That the law recognizes one as “acceptable” and the other as not, only shows how inconsistent and irrational the law can sometimes be.  And if present trends continue, toward normalizing and accepting sexual immorality, then surely we will see the time when incest will be just as legal, and just as normalized, as homosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor Bob- according to him society has gone steadily down hill since we stopped stoning adulterers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You let one 'immoral' and 'deviant' behavior go....you have to let them all I guess. At least according to Bob.
Click to expand...


It is all the fault of those molly coddling Puritans who didn't do the moral thing and stone their adulterers....


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> It is all the fault of those molly coddling Puritans who didn't do the moral thing and stone their adulterers....


Quite a large leap from your hyperbole there to legally divorcing a child from even the hope of both a mother and father for life...


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all the fault of those molly coddling Puritans who didn't do the moral thing and stone their adulterers....
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a large leap from your hyperbole there to legally divorcing a child from even the hope of both a mother and father for life...
Click to expand...


Its not a leap at all when the idiocy you're arguing against is 'there is no difference'. When silly people try to argue absolutes, they should hardly be surprised when we point out how silly that is.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all the fault of those molly coddling Puritans who didn't do the moral thing and stone their adulterers....
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a large leap from your hyperbole there to legally divorcing a child from even the hope of both a mother and father for life...
Click to expand...




Skylar said:


> Its not a leap at all when the idiocy you're arguing against is 'there is no difference'. *When silly people try to argue absolutes, they should hardly be surprised when we point out how silly that is*.


Unless the shoe fits...

Tell me again how it is that two gay men, married, still offer the contractual-benefit (importance) to children involved of a mother, for their entire life?  Tell me again how it is that two lesbians, married, still offer the contractual-benefit (importance) to children involved of a father, for their entire life?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all the fault of those molly coddling Puritans who didn't do the moral thing and stone their adulterers....
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a large leap from your hyperbole there to legally divorcing a child from even the hope of both a mother and father for life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not a leap at all when the idiocy you're arguing against is 'there is no difference'. *When silly people try to argue absolutes, they should hardly be surprised when we point out how silly that is*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless the shoe fits...
> 
> Tell me again how it is that two gay men, married, still offer the contractual-benefit (importance) to children involved of a mother, for their entire life?  Tell me again how it is that two lesbians, married, still offer the contractual-benefit (importance) to children involved of a father, for their entire life?
Click to expand...


Tell me again how denying marriage to same sex parents remedies any 'problem' you've cited?

For example, if a lesbian couple has a child.....and the State denies the lesbian couple marriage, do they magically become an opposite sex parents?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all the fault of those molly coddling Puritans who didn't do the moral thing and stone their adulterers....
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a large leap from your hyperbole there to legally divorcing a child from even the hope of both a mother and father for life...
Click to expand...


Quite a leap to think that parents divorce their children. 

Oh wait- heterosexual parents do abandon their children and they are left in foster care waiting for some caring parent or parents to adopt them.

You want to prevent those children from having any parent- just so that you can prevent a homosexual from adopting.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all the fault of those molly coddling Puritans who didn't do the moral thing and stone their adulterers....
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a large leap from your hyperbole there to legally divorcing a child from even the hope of both a mother and father for life...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not a leap at all when the idiocy you're arguing against is 'there is no difference'. *When silly people try to argue absolutes, they should hardly be surprised when we point out how silly that is*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless the shoe fits...
> 
> Tell me again how it is that two gay men, married, still offer the contractual-benefit (importance) to children involved of a mother, for their entire life?  Tell me again how it is that two lesbians, married, still offer the contractual-benefit (importance) to children involved of a father, for their entire life?
Click to expand...


A single man- doesn't offer the benefit of a mother involved in their lives for their entire lives
A single mother doesn't offer the benefit of a father involved in their lives for their entire lives.

Now persons who adopt- they offer a child a parent involved in their lives for the rest of their lives. You want to prevent that if the parent is a homosexual. 

Why would you prefer a child to reach adulthood- and be abandoned by the state rather than allow a parent who happens to be a homosexual adopt a child?


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Tell me again how denying marriage to same sex parents remedies any 'problem' you've cited?
> 
> For example, if a lesbian couple has a child.....and the State denies the lesbian couple marriage, do they magically become an opposite sex parents?



What a single lesbian has done to a child remains a debatable topic.  Suffice to say if a wolf adopts a human child and successfully raises it, it does so outside of lifelong binding contract and, we don't go making "wolf marriage" mandated on all 50 states as a result of "helping the poor children of wolves."

When you sit on a Mt. Everest of psychological data (and this poll running 90%) that says "it is important for a child to have both a mother and father, all other situations are inferior to that", you don't make the exceptional inferior situation "the new rule" "as a convenience to some kids caught up in the exception". 

Again, how do two gay men provide an important mother to the children involved?  How do two lesbians provide the important father to the children involved?  They don't and cannot ever. And when a state "marrys" them it binds the children via contractual terms for life to an inferior psychological situation known to cause them statistical harm.  That act is forbidden by federal law.


----------



## mdk

I was wondering when wolves raising children would be thrown into the mix again. Classic. lol


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me again how denying marriage to same sex parents remedies any 'problem' you've cited?
> 
> For example, if a lesbian couple has a child.....and the State denies the lesbian couple marriage, do they magically become an opposite sex parents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a single lesbian has done to a child remains a debatable topic.  Suffice to say if a wolf adopts a human child and successfully raises it, it does so outside of lifelong binding contract and, we don't go making "wolf marriage" mandated on all 50 states as a result of "helping the poor children of wolves."
Click to expand...


Well since lesbians aren't 'wolves', nor are children parties to the marriage of their parents.......do you have any pseudo-legal gibberish that has a thing to do with this topic?



> When you sit on a Mt. Everest of psychological data (and this poll running 90%) that says "it is important for a child to have both a mother and father, all other situations are inferior to that", you don't make the exceptional inferior situation "the new rule" "as a convenience to some kids caught up in the exception".



Then you should have been arrested and your child taken from you for raising your daughter without a father?


----------



## Debra K

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me again how denying marriage to same sex parents remedies any 'problem' you've cited?
> 
> For example, if a lesbian couple has a child.....and the State denies the lesbian couple marriage, do they magically become an opposite sex parents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a single lesbian has done to a child remains a debatable topic.  Suffice to say if a wolf adopts a human child and successfully raises it, it does so outside of lifelong binding contract and, we don't go making "wolf marriage" mandated on all 50 states as a result of "helping the poor children of wolves."
> 
> When you sit on a Mt. Everest of psychological data (and this poll running 90%) that says "it is important for a child to have both a mother and father, all other situations are inferior to that", you don't make the exceptional inferior situation "the new rule" "as a convenience to some kids caught up in the exception".
> 
> Again, how do two gay men provide an important mother to the children involved?  How do two lesbians provide the important father to the children involved?  They don't and cannot ever. And when a state "marrys" them it binds the children via contractual terms for life to an inferior psychological situation known to cause them statistical harm.  That act is forbidden by federal law.
Click to expand...


You are misrepresenting your poll.  The question--noted at the top of your poll--was:  "Did you have regular contact with both a mother and father in life & think it was important?"

I had both a mother and father in life.  I did not have regular contact with both.  Did I think regular contact with both was important?  No I did not.  In fact, my mother didn't speak to me for an entire year because she was mad at me.   It was a peaceful and pleasant year.  

The results of your insignificant and badly-worded poll does not stand for the alleged proposition "it is important for a child to have both a mother and father, all other situations are inferior to that".   That's a blatant falsehood.

The alleged results of your insignificant and badly-worded poll mean nothing at all.  It is not the "Mt. Everest of psychological data" that you claim it to be.  Your hate for an entire class of people doesn't allow you to process information and think clearly.   You apparently believe it is better for a child have one unfit mother rather than two fit fathers.   Good thing you're not in charge of the world.


----------



## Silhouette

Debra K said:


> You are misrepresenting your poll.  The question--noted at the top of your poll--was:  "Did you have regular contact with both a mother and father in life & think it was important?"



Marriage is regular contact with both a mother and father.  "Gay marriage" bans that contact of one or the other FOREVER.  I'm not interested in your extremely rare exception elective-scenarios.  I'm talking about the preponderance of "gay marriage" that isolates children away from either a mom or dad for life, as a matter of binding contract.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are misrepresenting your poll.  The question--noted at the top of your poll--was:  "Did you have regular contact with both a mother and father in life & think it was important?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is regular contact with both a mother and father.  "Gay marriage" bans that contact of one or the other FOREVER.  I'm not interested in your extremely rare exception elective-scenarios.  I'm talking about the preponderance of "gay marriage" that isolates children away from either a mom or dad for life, as a matter of binding contract.
Click to expand...


You're trying so hard to make your pseudo-legal gibberish to sound like actual law. Tossing in 'preponderance' and 'binding contract' and the like.

But you still have no idea what you're talking about. First, the Supreme Court has found that denying same sex marriage hurts children. And recognizing same sex marriage helps children. So the court has explicitly contradicting your foundational assumptions that denying same sex marriage and children.

Ending any 'legal' argument. As you've been reduced to straight up ignoring the explicit findings of the Supreme Court. And no court will do the same. 

Second, children aren't parties to the marriage of their parents. Not direct parties, no implied parties, no explict parties, not third party beneficiaries. Making all your 'binding contract' gibberish meaningless. As none of you pseudo-legal assumptions are reflected in the actual law. Ending any 'legal' argument a second time.

Third,the Supreme Court has explicitly found that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. Ending your 'legal' argument a third time.

Remember....just because you recite nonsense to yourself doesn't mean that the law changes.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Third,the Supreme Court has explicitly found that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. Ending your 'legal' argument a third time.
> 
> Remember....just because you recite nonsense to yourself doesn't mean that the law changes.



Who was there representing children's unique rights to the marriage contract.  The Court did not Find that states couldn't and shouldn't anticipate that children will arrive in marriage.  As such, children who  have shared the contract implicitly for over a thousand years had no representation at the contract-revision hearing (Obergefell) which is forbidden by contract law. All parties must attend or be represented.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Third,the Supreme Court has explicitly found that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. Ending your 'legal' argument a third time.
> 
> Remember....just because you recite nonsense to yourself doesn't mean that the law changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was there representing children's unique rights to the marriage contract.
Click to expand...


Who says that there has to be representation for 'children's unique rights' in any Supreme court hearing? That would be you citing your imagination again. There is no such requirement.* In fact the Supreme Court has NEVER had a 'representative' for 'all children' in any hearing the court has ever heard.* You've literally hallucinated it. 

Seriously, you no idea what you're talking about. None. Guessing would produce better results than the endless stream of pseudo-legal gibberish you've spouted. 



> The Court did not Find that states couldn't and shouldn't anticipate that children will arrive in marriage.



The court explicitly found that the right to marry is not conditioned on children or the ability to have them. Says who? Says Obergefell. 



			
				Obergefell v. Hodges said:
			
		

> This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.
> 
> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf



*Yet once again, you've ignored the explicit findings of the Supreme Court and replaced it with whatever pseudo-legal babble you imagine. *And then laughably insist that the Supreme Court is bound to your babble.

Laughing....no, it isn't. No one is bound to your imagination. 



> As such, children who  have shared the contract implicitly for over a thousand years had no representation at the contract-revision hearing (Obergefell) which is forbidden by contract law. All parties must attend or be represented.



*Children are not parties to the marriage of their parents.* Not implicit parties, not explicit parties, not third party beneficiaries. Nor can you cite any law or court ruling that finds that they are. Its just more of the pseudo-legal nonsense that you've made up.  The comforting lies you tell yourself on a topic you know nothing about. And your imagination is legally meaningless. 

As such, your argument has no legal relevance. 

You can't get around that.


----------



## Silhouette

A court has not heard the specific question of whether or not children are implicit parties to the marriage contract.  So you can't make your claim in bold definitively.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> A court has not heard the specific question of whether or not children are implicit parties to the marriage contract.  So you can't make your claim in bold definitively.



The court has already rejected your fundamental assumptions by finding that same sex marriage benefits children and denying same sex hurts children.

Worse still for your pseudo-legal nonsense......*they've already found that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. *Making your entire argument moot.

And of course, none of your blithering nonsense about children being parties to the marriage of their parents has the slightest relevance as it has nothing to do with our laws. Same with your 'representation at a Supreme Court' hearing babble.

You've imagined all of it. And your imagination is legally irrelevant. Ignore the Supreme Court all you like. It doesn't matter.


----------



## ChrisL

I think what is more important is that you have good role models in your life.  You can have a mother and a father who are drunkards, drug addicts, etc.


----------



## Skylar

ChrisL said:


> I think what is more important is that you have good role models in your life.  You can have a mother and a father who are drunkards, drug addicts, etc.



And that's a great point. I'll give it to two loving parents of any gender if they're committed to their kids and invest the time in raising them.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me again how denying marriage to same sex parents remedies any 'problem' you've cited?
> 
> For example, if a lesbian couple has a child.....and the State denies the lesbian couple marriage, do they magically become an opposite sex parents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suffice to say if a wolf adopts a human child and successfully raises it,.
Click to expand...


Wolves eat children- they don't adopt them.

Yet- you would prefer a wolf to a lesbian.

Things that make people go 'ewwwwww'


----------



## Syriusly

ChrisL said:


> I think what is more important is that you have good role models in your life.  You can have a mother and a father who are drunkards, drug addicts, etc.



Exactly.

Silhouette is hardly honest about any of this issue.

She says she is against incestuous marriage- yet that Brother Sister marriage meets her definition of what marriage is all about- but I don't think that pairing is an ideal married couple or ideal parents.

I think that it would be great for a child to have both a loving mother and father who were committed to raising their children heart and soul.

But we don't require that of ANY parent- Silhouette wants to require it for homosexuals. 

We allow single mothers to be parents, we allow crack addicts to be parents, we allow distant emotionally abusive persons to be parents.

I am for a child having at least one good- committed parent- preferably two- and heck I will even go so far and say I think it would be best for a child to have a mother and a father.

But it would also be better for a child to have two good mothers- rather than one good mother. 

To have two good fathers rather than just one good father.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Debra K said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are misrepresenting your poll.  The question--noted at the top of your poll--was:  "Did you have regular contact with both a mother and father in life & think it was important?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is regular contact with both a mother and father..
Click to expand...


So a marriage between a brother and a sister who were the mother and father would fit your definition- and would be preferable to a single mother as a parent?


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> So a marriage between a brother and a sister who were the mother and father would fit your definition- and would be preferable to a single mother as a parent?


No, they would be equally detestable for different reasons.  Brother and sister would teach the children "procreation with your close blood relatives is a good thing".  I can show you pictures in livestock of what happens when inbreeding becomes a cultural norm if you like?

And with the single parent, it is not good because the child is being deprived of either a mother or father at present...but the hope still remains because there's no contractual bind mandating "single parent for life" like there is with an incest-marriage or gay-marriage contract.  I know you know the difference between unfortunate situations and contractual binds and norms.

In all contractually-binding cases the children's consideration comes first, the adult's second; as required by law.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a marriage between a brother and a sister who were the mother and father would fit your definition- and would be preferable to a single mother as a parent?
> 
> 
> 
> No, they would be equally detestable for different reasons.  Brother and sister would teach the children "procreation with your close blood relatives is a good thing"..
Click to expand...


But you said the "marriage contract was all about providing children with a mother and father"- and incestuous marriage would do exactly that.

So tell us what your new modified fictional marriage contract is?


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a marriage between a brother and a sister who were the mother and father would fit your definition- and would be preferable to a single mother as a parent?
> 
> 
> 
> No, they would be equally detestable for different reasons.  Brother and sister would teach the children "procreation with your close blood relatives is a good thing"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you said the "marriage contract was all about providing children with a mother and father"- and incestuous marriage would do exactly that.
> 
> So tell us what your new modified fictional marriage contract is?
Click to expand...


Laughing......its fun to watch her modify her made up nonsense on the fly. Its like listening to a 4 year old point their finger and pretend its an 'invisible anti-shield laser gun'.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Laughing......its fun to watch her modify her made up nonsense on the fly. Its like listening to a 4 year old point their finger and pretend its an 'invisible anti-shield laser gun'.


Are you laughing about the 90% who believe a child having both a mother and father is important?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laughing......its fun to watch her modify her made up nonsense on the fly. Its like listening to a 4 year old point their finger and pretend its an 'invisible anti-shield laser gun'.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you laughing about the 90% who believe a child having both a mother and father is important?
Click to expand...


I'm going to laugh as your imaginary pseudo-legal gibberish is desperately changed to try and shore up one self contradicting hole in your reasoning after another.

As *none* of your made up 'requirements' or silliness about 'contracts' has a thing to do with our laws. Which you kindly demonstrate for us every time you make up a new imaginary 'requirement'.


----------



## Silhouette

Laugh all you want.  Have you looked at the poll results recently ^^ ?...


----------



## rightwinger

Would you rather have a single mother or two mothers in your life?


----------



## Silhouette

rightwinger said:


> Would you rather have a single mother or two mothers in your life?


Single....with the hope of a father to come some day..


----------



## rightwinger

Silhouette said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you rather have a single mother or two mothers in your life?
> 
> 
> 
> Single....with the hope of a father to come some day..
Click to expand...


Hope?

Why not have two adults who love and support you rather than "hope" your lesbian mother finds a husband?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

rightwinger said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you rather have a single mother or two mothers in your life?
> 
> 
> 
> Single....with the hope of a father to come some day..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hope?
> 
> Why not have two adults who love and support you rather than "hope" your lesbian mother finds a husband?
Click to expand...


  An important function of parents is to provide a moral example to their children.

  Homosexuality is inherently sick and immoral, and not an appropriate example for children.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laughing......its fun to watch her modify her made up nonsense on the fly. Its like listening to a 4 year old point their finger and pretend its an 'invisible anti-shield laser gun'.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you laughing about the 90% who believe a child having both a mother and father is important?
Click to expand...


We are laughing at you. 

And your wierd whack a mole declarations of what children need.

An incestuous brother and sister provide that father and mother you insist is what all children need- you have posted hundreds of times about how kids need their mother and their father.

So why are you against that incestuous brother and sister marrying since they meet your criteria?


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you rather have a single mother or two mothers in your life?
> 
> 
> 
> Single....with the hope of a father to come some day..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hope?
> 
> Why not have two adults who love and support you rather than "hope" your lesbian mother finds a husband?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An important function of parents is to provide a moral example to their children.
> 
> Homosexuality is inherently sick and immoral, and not an appropriate example for children.
Click to expand...


Yet millions and millions of American parents provide their 'moral example to children' by divorcing and remarrying- something which Jesus says is adultery.

Not that bigots like you care anything about morality other than as a club to attack those you disagree with.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you rather have a single mother or two mothers in your life?
> 
> 
> 
> Single....with the hope of a father to come some day..
Click to expand...


Why?

Silhouette- does a child need a mother and a father- or are you saying that a child doesn't actually need a mother and a father- but needs merely the hope that one day he might have a mother or a father?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Laugh all you want.  Have you looked at the poll results recently ^^ ?...


----------



## Syriusly




----------



## Bob Blaylock

Syriusly said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> An important function of parents is to provide a moral example to their children.
> 
> Homosexuality is inherently sick and immoral, and not an appropriate example for children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet millions and millions of American parents provide their 'moral example to children' by divorcing and remarrying- something which Jesus says is adultery.
Click to expand...


  Do you assume that because I disapprove of one evil, that I must approve of another?


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> An important function of parents is to provide a moral example to their children.
> 
> Homosexuality is inherently sick and immoral, and not an appropriate example for children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet millions and millions of American parents provide their 'moral example to children' by divorcing and remarrying- something which Jesus says is adultery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you assume that because I disapprove of one evil, that I must approve of another?
Click to expand...


I assume you find so very very very many things evil and disapprove of most things most people do. 

I assume you spend your days and weeks not only being offended, but researching things to be offended about.


----------



## rightwinger

Bob Blaylock said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you rather have a single mother or two mothers in your life?
> 
> 
> 
> Single....with the hope of a father to come some day..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hope?
> 
> Why not have two adults who love and support you rather than "hope" your lesbian mother finds a husband?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An important function of parents is to provide a moral example to their children.
> 
> Homosexuality is inherently sick and immoral, and not an appropriate example for children.
Click to expand...

Very, very true

They should not have sex in front of their children. But neither should heterosexual parents. But showing that they love and care for each other sets a good moral example


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Laugh all you want.  Have you looked at the poll results recently ^^ ?...



Yup. 






But tell us again about how gays 'inflitrated gallup' to produce false results? That one always makes me giggle.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you rather have a single mother or two mothers in your life?
> 
> 
> 
> Single....with the hope of a father to come some day..
Click to expand...


Hope isn't a father. You've insisted that its the denial of a mother and a father that is child abuse. And that the State should intervene.

Thus, by your own standards.....the CPS should have taken your daughter when you tried to raise her as a single mother. But that's right....your standards don't apply to straight people. Only the gays.

Back in reality, you're fine. Being a single mother isn't a crime nor is it child abuse. Likewise, same sex parents are fine. Being same sex parents isn't a crime nor is it child abuse.

Remember...all the rambling pseudo-legal gibberish you make up? That's has nothing to do with the actual law.


----------



## Skylar

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> An important function of parents is to provide a moral example to their children.
> 
> Homosexuality is inherently sick and immoral, and not an appropriate example for children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet millions and millions of American parents provide their 'moral example to children' by divorcing and remarrying- something which Jesus says is adultery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you assume that because I disapprove of one evil, that I must approve of another?
Click to expand...


But what 'evil' are you referring to? Remember Bob.....you're offering us your Begging the Question fallacy. Where you begin from the assumption that your beliefs are fact. And then come to conclusions that affirm those beliefs are facts.

*Your evidence and your conclusions are the exact same thing. That's a circular argument.* And a classic fallacy of logic.

You'll have to factually establish the 'evil' you're referring to rather than just assume it must be so. As there's no reason for us or any other rational person to 'assume' with you.


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you rather have a single mother or two mothers in your life?
> 
> 
> 
> Single....with the hope of a father to come some day..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hope isn't a father. You've insisted that its the denial of a mother and a father that is child abuse. And that the State should intervene.
> 
> Thus, by your own standards.....the CPS should have taken your daughter when you tried to raise her as a single mother. But that's right....your standards don't apply to straight people. Only the gays.
> 
> Back in reality, you're fine. Being a single mother isn't a crime nor is it child abuse. Likewise, same sex parents are fine. Being same sex parents isn't a crime nor is it child abuse.
> 
> Remember...all the rambling pseudo-legal gibberish you make up? That's has nothing to do with the actual law.
Click to expand...


Frank shows that all kids need are high hopes.....


----------



## rightwinger

Is a child better off with two adults in his life than one?
Regardless of their gender?


----------



## Syriusly

And by the way- I have tremendous admiration for single mothers-  I have a sister who raised her child on her own- and she was and is a great mom.

The biggest issues she faced are the ones most single mothers face- economic.  As a parent myself- who has a supportive spouse- I can appreciate the economic power a married couple brings to parenting- either two incomes- or 1 income- and a second parent who can do all of those necessary parenting things that either cost money if you are a single parent(babysitting) or just aren't possible if you are a working mom(attend soccer and softball games, volunteer at your child's school).

Every family- every parent's situation is different- merely being a 'mother and father' doesn't ensure good parents, being two mom's or a single mom doesn't either- but two parents- opposite gender or same gender- greatly improves the chances that the child will be raised without being economically insecure, and with at least one good parents in his or her life.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> And by the way- I have tremendous admiration for single mothers-  I have a sister who raised her child on her own- and she was and is a great mom.
> 
> The biggest issues she faced are the ones most single mothers face- economic.  As a parent myself- who has a supportive spouse- I can appreciate the economic power a married couple brings to parenting- either two incomes- or 1 income- and a second parent who can do all of those necessary parenting things that either cost money if you are a single parent(babysitting) or just aren't possible if you are a working mom(attend soccer and softball games, volunteer at your child's school).
> 
> Every family- every parent's situation is different- merely being a 'mother and father' doesn't ensure good parents, being two mom's or a single mom doesn't either- but two parents- opposite gender or same gender- greatly improves the chances that the child will be raised without being economically insecure, and with at least one good parents in his or her life.



Most folks, including myself would agree. But using Sil's 'denying a mother and a father is intentional cruelty and child abuse' with the 'state should intervene' standard.......single motherhood would be a felony. And a pretty serious one.

Thankfully, Sil's pseudo-legal gibberish has nothing to do with the actual law. Which might explain why Sil wasn't never arrested nor her daughter put into foster care. As single parenthood isn't a crime. Nor is same sex parenthood.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> And by the way- I have tremendous admiration for single mothers-  I have a sister who raised her child on her own- and she was and is a great mom.
> 
> The biggest issues she faced are the ones most single mothers face- economic.  As a parent myself- who has a supportive spouse- I can appreciate the economic power a married couple brings to parenting- either two incomes- or 1 income- and a second parent who can do all of those necessary parenting things that either cost money if you are a single parent(babysitting) or just aren't possible if you are a working mom(attend soccer and softball games, volunteer at your child's school).



Who is the father for your son?  What hope does your son have of ever having a father in his life?  Answer: None, via contract.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by the way- I have tremendous admiration for single mothers-  I have a sister who raised her child on her own- and she was and is a great mom.
> 
> The biggest issues she faced are the ones most single mothers face- economic.  As a parent myself- who has a supportive spouse- I can appreciate the economic power a married couple brings to parenting- either two incomes- or 1 income- and a second parent who can do all of those necessary parenting things that either cost money if you are a single parent(babysitting) or just aren't possible if you are a working mom(attend soccer and softball games, volunteer at your child's school).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the father for your son?  What hope does your son have of ever having a father in his life?  Answer: None, via contract.
Click to expand...


You realize that your 'contract' gibberish has nothing to do with the actual law, right?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by the way- I have tremendous admiration for single mothers-  I have a sister who raised her child on her own- and she was and is a great mom.
> 
> The biggest issues she faced are the ones most single mothers face- economic.  As a parent myself- who has a supportive spouse- I can appreciate the economic power a married couple brings to parenting- either two incomes- or 1 income- and a second parent who can do all of those necessary parenting things that either cost money if you are a single parent(babysitting) or just aren't possible if you are a working mom(attend soccer and softball games, volunteer at your child's school).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the father for your son?  What hope does your son have of ever having a father in his life?  Answer: None, via contract.
Click to expand...


What the hell are you talking about? What son?

Who was the father to your children? Were you committing child abuse by being a single mother?


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by the way- I have tremendous admiration for single mothers-  I have a sister who raised her child on her own- and she was and is a great mom.
> 
> The biggest issues she faced are the ones most single mothers face- economic.  As a parent myself- who has a supportive spouse- I can appreciate the economic power a married couple brings to parenting- either two incomes- or 1 income- and a second parent who can do all of those necessary parenting things that either cost money if you are a single parent(babysitting) or just aren't possible if you are a working mom(attend soccer and softball games, volunteer at your child's school).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the father for your son?  What hope does your son have of ever having a father in his life?  Answer: None, via contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize that your 'contract' gibberish has nothing to do with the actual law, right?
Click to expand...


Or my post.....i.e. nothing to do with reality.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> You realize that your 'contract' gibberish has nothing to do with the actual law, right?



So....contract law is "gibberish".  Well that will settle quite a lot of civil cases very differently...


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that your 'contract' gibberish has nothing to do with the actual law, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....contract law is "gibberish".  Well that will settle quite a lot of civil cases very differently...
Click to expand...


No, the pseudo-legal nonsense you've made up about contract law is gibberish. 

And no civil case recognizes the nonsense you've made up. Show us one law or court case that recognizes children as parties to the marriage of their children.

Its just you.......citing you. And your source sucks.


----------



## Silhouette

A typical post from "Skylar" professional LGBT payroll troll..


> The pseudo-legal gibberish...The pseudo-legal gibberish....The pseudo-legal gibberish.....The pseudo-legal gibberish.....The pseudo-legal gibberish.....The pseudo-legal gibberish....The pseudo-legal gibberish....The pseudo-legal gibberish.....The pseudo-legal gibberish....The pseudo-legal gibberish.....The pseudo-legal gibberish.....The pseudo-legal gibberish.....The pseudo-legal gibberish.....The pseudo-legal gibberish....The pseudo-legal gibberish.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> A typical post from "Skylar" professional LGBT payroll troll..
> 
> 
> 
> The pseudo-legal gibberish...The pseudo-legal gibberish....The pseudo-legal gibberish.....The pseudo-legal gibberish.....The pseudo-legal gibberish.....The pseudo-legal gibberish....The pseudo-legal gibberish....The pseudo-legal gibberish.....The pseudo-legal gibberish....The pseudo-legal gibberish.....The pseudo-legal gibberish.....The pseudo-legal gibberish.....The pseudo-legal gibberish.....The pseudo-legal gibberish....The pseudo-legal gibberish.
Click to expand...


You're the one making shit up. 

For example.....show us the law or court ruling that recognizes that children are implied parties to the marriage of their parents.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> A typical post from "Skylar" professional LGBT payroll troll..
> 
> 
> 
> The pseudo-legal gibberish...The pseudo-legal gibberish....The pseudo-legal gibberish.....The pseudo-legal gibberish.....The pseudo-legal gibberish.....The pseudo-legal gibberish....The pseudo-legal gibberish....The pseudo-legal gibberish.....The pseudo-legal gibberish....The pseudo-legal gibberish.....The pseudo-legal gibberish.....The pseudo-legal gibberish.....The pseudo-legal gibberish.....The pseudo-legal gibberish....The pseudo-legal gibberish.
Click to expand...

Silhouette is getting testy.

She must be frustrated by having both her lies constantly exposed, as well as her own personal hypocrisy at being a single mom and claiming a gay couple raising a child without a father is child abuse.


----------



## Silhouette

Getting testy?  Study projection Syriusly and get back to me.  The only ones getting testy around here are those using ad hominems routinely in substitution for actual data.  The actual data of the near 100 people who voted on the poll above says 90% of people believe having a father and mother is important to a child.

Now if they try to backtrack and say "no, I meant it was only important to ME", that means that they don't have the ability to empathize with others.  So they are either lying to themselves and others, or they are sociopaths.  In other words, if you think it is important to yourself that you had a mother and father, then you also believe it's important for other children as well.  Or, you only care about yourself.  Perhaps that should have been another question on the poll?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Getting testy?  Study projection Syriusly and get back to me.  The only ones getting testy around here are those using ad hominems routinely in substitution for actual data.  The actual data of the near 100 people who voted on the poll above says 90% of people believe having a father and mother is important to a child.



And where is the law or court ruling that recognizes that children are implied parties to the marriage of their parents?


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Getting testy?  Study projection Syriusly and get back to me.  The only ones getting testy around here are those using ad hominems routinely in substitution for actual data.  The actual data of the near 100 people who voted on the poll above says 90% of people believe having a father and mother is important to a child.





Skylar said:


> And where is the law or court ruling that recognizes that children are implied parties to the marriage of their parents?


Take your choice.  I'm sure there are dozens of cases where infants implicitly shared in contracts where an attempt was made to change them to deprive the infant of a necessity and the contract, therefore, was found to be void. 

You know how infants and contract law work Skylar..  Or you could read USSC 1982 New York vs Ferber...


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting testy?  Study projection Syriusly and get back to me.  The only ones getting testy around here are those using ad hominems routinely in substitution for actual data.  The actual data of the near 100 people who voted on the poll above says 90% of people believe having a father and mother is important to a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where is the law or court ruling that recognizes that children are implied parties to the marriage of their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take your choice.  I'm sure there are dozens of cases where infants implicitly shared in contracts where an attempt was made to change them to deprive the infant of a necessity and the contract, therefore, was found to be void.
> 
> You know how infants and contract law work Skylar..  Or you could read USSC 1982 New York vs Ferber...
Click to expand...


Then show us one case where an infant was recognized as being an implict party in the marriage of their parents.

If there are dozens of such cases, it should be remarkably easy for you to cite one. If you're just making up more pseudo-legal gibberish, it will be considerably more difficult.....with you giving us excuses why you can't. 

Gee, I wonder which we'll get.



> You know how infants and contract law work Skylar..  Or you could read USSC 1982 New York vs Ferber...



I certainly know how your imagination works. Alas, the courts are bound to what the cases actually say. Not what you imagine they said. And Ferber mentions neither contracts nor marriage.

You made that up. 

Now, show us a case where a child is found to be an implied party to the marriage of their parents. Its only been 6 months of perfect failure for you to ever do so.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Getting testy?  Study projection Syriusly and get back to me.



Silhouette is getting testy.

She must be frustrated by having both her lies constantly exposed, as well as her own personal hypocrisy at being a single mom and claiming a gay couple raising a child without a father is child abuse.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> She must be frustrated by having both her lies constantly exposed, as well as her own personal hypocrisy at being a single mom and claiming a gay couple raising a child without a father is child abuse.


Well if it was my own personal issue alone, why do 90% of the people on the poll above feel it's "important" for a child to have both a mother and father?..


----------



## Dhara

It's important for a child to having loving parents.  They don't have to be parents in the Ozzie and Harriet model.  Some single parents are excellent parents and raise healthy kids.  The OP just likes to trash families who happen to have LGBT members.

It's boring.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> She must be frustrated by having both her lies constantly exposed, as well as her own personal hypocrisy at being a single mom and claiming a gay couple raising a child without a father is child abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> Well if it was my own personal issue alone, why do 90% of the people on the poll above feel it's "important" for a child to have both a mother and father?..
Click to expand...


So you think that those people all condemn your single parenting?


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> She must be frustrated by having both her lies constantly exposed, as well as her own personal hypocrisy at being a single mom and claiming a gay couple raising a child without a father is child abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> Well if it was my own personal issue alone, why do 90% of the people on the poll above feel it's "important" for a child to have both a mother and father?..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think that those people all condemn your single parenting?
Click to expand...


 Per Sil's logic, they probably all consider single parenting child abuse. And would insist that the State take the children of single parents.


----------



## Silhouette

Dhara said:


> It's important for a child to having loving parents.  They don't have to be parents in the Ozzie and Harriet model.  Some single parents are excellent parents and raise healthy kids.  The OP just likes to trash families who happen to have LGBT members.



Actually, there are more than just 1 person who voted on the poll.  I think there were 92 at my last count...possibly more by now.  90% of those people said they themselves believe that having BOTH a mother and father is "IMPORTANT".  So it's not just the OP saying that.  It's 90% of folks saying that.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Dhara said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's important for a child to having loving parents.  They don't have to be parents in the Ozzie and Harriet model.  Some single parents are excellent parents and raise healthy kids.  The OP just likes to trash families who happen to have LGBT members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there are more than just 1 person who voted on the poll.  I think there were 92 at my last count...possibly more by now.  90% of those people said they themselves believe that having BOTH a mother and father is "IMPORTANT".  So it's not just the OP saying that.  It's 90% of folks saying that.
Click to expand...


And none of them voted on same sex marriage....your LGBT 'cult'......transgender bathrooms.......Public Accomidation laws....or any of the other silly shit you imagined.

You're just thumbsucking, Sil. Lying to yourself as a self soothing exercise. You do that every time reality doesn't match what you imagined it would be.


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> Per Sil's logic, they probably all consider single parenting child abuse. And would insist that the State take the children of single parents.


Per my logic, discussing contracts and children's share in them re: "necessities", single parenthood is a non sequitur.  There is no contract binding a single parent to that status for life.  There is binding a child to a gay marriage though. I know you know this legal difference.  One is an unfortunate situation that can be remedied, and all hope that it is.  The other is a mental prison a child cannot escape from for life.

A child cannot be contractually (legally) bound to the deprivation of a necessity for life.  Not even for a week actually.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Per Sil's logic, they probably all consider single parenting child abuse. And would insist that the State take the children of single parents.
> 
> 
> 
> Per my logic, discussing contracts and children's share in them re: "necessities", single parenthood is a non sequitur.  There is no contract binding a single parent to that status for life.  There is binding a child to a gay marriage though. I know you know this legal difference.  One is an unfortunate situation that can be remedied, and all hope that it is.  The other is a mental prison a child cannot escape from for life.
> 
> A child cannot be contractually (legally) bound to the deprivation of a necessity for life.  Not even for a week actually.
Click to expand...


Imagine that! Your standard doesn't apply to you and only towards gay. How delightfully convenient for your narrative.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Per Sil's logic, they probably all consider single parenting child abuse. And would insist that the State take the children of single parents.
> 
> 
> 
> Per my logic, discussing contracts and children's share in them re: "necessities", single parenthood is a non sequitur.
Click to expand...


And what law or court ruling recognizes that children are implied parties in the marriage of their parents?


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Imagine that! Your standard doesn't apply to you and only towards gay. How delightfully convenient for your narrative.



Deliberately dense are you?  The poll shows that no matter what the LGBT media machine manipulates as to public perception, the raw numbers are actually 90% of people who believe it's important that a child have both a mother and father.  Since people are smart enough to figure out that single parents can become married, the only thing left to ponder is "can children of gay marriage ever have what is important to them".  And of course the answer is "as a matter of binding contract, no".  

And that is the formula for the true, deep and actual sentiments of 90% of the folks who voted.  Feeling its important for a child to have both a mother and father AND being in support of "gay marriage" cannot exist in the same human mind.  Unless that mind is apathic or broken.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine that! Your standard doesn't apply to you and only towards gay. How delightfully convenient for your narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deliberately dense are you?  The poll shows that no matter what the LGBT media machine manipulates as to public perception, the raw numbers are actually 90% of people who believe it's important that a child have both a mother and father.  Since people are smart enough to figure out that single parents can become married, the only thing left to ponder is "can children of gay marriage ever have what is important to them".  And of course the answer is "as a matter of binding contract, no".
> 
> And that is the formula for the true, deep and actual sentiments of 90% of the folks who voted.  Feeling its important for a child to have both a mother and father AND being in support of "gay marriage" cannot exist in the same human mind.  Unless that mind is apathic or broken.
Click to expand...


The only person you're fooling with these lies is yourself. I am sorry you can't take children away from their gay parents. Truly, I am. lol


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine that! Your standard doesn't apply to you and only towards gay. How delightfully convenient for your narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deliberately dense are you?  The poll shows that no matter what the LGBT media machine manipulates as to public perception, the raw numbers are actually 90% of people who believe it's important that a child have both a mother and father.
Click to expand...


A straw poll of only interested parties where you can vote as many times as you like doesn't tell us a thing about 'the people'. Anymore than Ron Paul dominating virtually every straw poll for presidential in 2008 and 2012 did. 

And your straw poll of interested parties where you can vote as many times as you want certainly didn't say a thing about LGBT folks, marriage, christianity, public accommodation laws or any of the other delusional gibberish you attributed to it.

The Gallup poll on same sex marriage certainly did tell us about same sex marriage, though. 






Ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter. 



> Since people are smart enough to figure out that single parents can become married, the only thing left to ponder is "can children of gay marriage ever have what is important to them".  And of course the answer is "as a matter of binding contract, no".



And what law or court ruling recognizes that a child is an implied party to the marriage of their parents?

[cue chirping crickets]


----------



## Silhouette

Skylar said:


> And what law or court ruling recognizes that a child is an implied party to the marriage of their parents?
> 
> [cue chirping crickets]



Ah here we go with temporal manipulation.  What court in the PAST has recognized that a child is an implied party to the marriage contract of his/her parents?  Or what court in the FUTURE, UPON CHALLENGE will recognize that a child is an implied party to the marriage contract?


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what law or court ruling recognizes that a child is an implied party to the marriage of their parents?
> 
> [cue chirping crickets]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah here we go with temporal manipulation.  What court in the PAST has recognized that a child is an implied party to the marriage contract of his/her parents?  Or what court in the FUTURE, UPON CHALLENGE will recognize that a child is an implied party to the marriage contract?
Click to expand...


Your whole argument hinges on the bullshit claim that are children an implicit part of a marriage contract. Not a single state or court case recognizes that to be the case. Why on Earth would we ignore them and listen to you instead? Hint: No one does.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Per Sil's logic, they probably all consider single parenting child abuse. And would insist that the State take the children of single parents.
> 
> 
> 
> Per my logic,
Click to expand...


I couldn't get past your abuse of the word 'logic'......


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine that! Your standard doesn't apply to you and only towards gay. How delightfully convenient for your narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deliberately dense are you?  The poll shows that no matter what the LGBT media machine manipulates as to public perception, the raw numbers are actually 90% of people who believe it's.
Click to expand...


90%- i.e. 90 people here as USMB say that a mother and father are important to a child.

55% of people in national polls say that they are in favor of marriage equality when asked specifically about marriage equality.

There is a reason why you have never started a poll actually asking people what they believe about marriage equality.


----------



## Silhouette

theDoctorisIn said:


> I'm neither a Democrat, a Moderate, or a Republican, and none of your options describe my family life.



So then you're a rare exception to the rule.  This thread is about the dominating opinion: 90% in favor of both a mother and father being important to a child.



Syriusly said:


> 90%- i.e. 90 people here as USMB say that a mother and father are important to a child...55% of people in national polls say that they are in favor of marriage equality when asked specifically about marriage equality...*There is a reason why you have never started a poll actually asking people what they believe about marriage equality*.



Yes, you are correct.  And that reason is: current media manipulation and smoke and mirrors mass-hypnosis.  Though we can assume my poll here is more pure since it is a simple question of a millennial old phenomenon: a child wanting both a mother and father.

The entire reason I asked the questions in the poll here was to eventually point out that gay marriage NEVER provides both a mother and father.  And worse than single parenthood, it blockades by legal contract the presence of either a mother or father for the child for life.

Logic demands and cannot waver from the fact that it is impossible for one person's sane mind to incorporate the two diametrically-opposed stances.  One cannot believe it is important for a child to have both a mother and father and also feel it is important gays be able to marry. (an institution created and maintained for the inevitable presence of children for over a thousand years)...


----------



## OffensivelyOpenMinded

Of course it's important.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm neither a Democrat, a Moderate, or a Republican, and none of your options describe my family life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then you're a rare exception to the rule.  This thread is about the dominating opinion: 90% in favor of both a mother and father being important to a child.
Click to expand...


A 'rare exception' according to who? Remember, the only person you're citing on all your 'gay marriage', 'LGBT cult' nonsense...is yourself. Which you've imagined '90%' of people think as well. Despite your strawpoll never so much as mentioning marriage, or gays, or cults or anything you've made up.

So Doctorish is an exception_ to your imagination_? 



Syriusly said:


> 90%- i.e. 90 people here as USMB say that a mother and father are important to a child...55% of people in national polls say that they are in favor of marriage equality when asked specifically about marriage equality...*There is a reason why you have never started a poll actually asking people what they believe about marriage equality*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are correct.  And that reason is: current media manipulation and smoke and mirrors mass-hypnosis.  Though we can assume my poll here is more pure since it is a simple question of a millennial old phenomenon: a child wanting both a mother and father.
Click to expand...


'Media manipulation' like the 'gays infiltrating gallup polling' and the other absolutlely batshit nonsense you've made up? Remember, your imagination isn't actually evidence. 

Back in reality, your messageboard strawpoll doesn't even mention marriage. . When people are directly asked about marriage.......they contradict you:






So you ignore Gallup (and every other poll) and make up increasingly bizarre and disjointed conspiracy theories backed by absolutely nothing.

Oh, and since you like message board straw polls since they're not corrupted by 'media manipulation', how about this one that directly addresses the issue:

Poll- Marriage Equality

And contradicts you with numbers similar to Gallup: 63% in favor of same sex marriage. 36% opposed. Which, of course, you'll ignore as well. As you ignore anything that contradicts what you want to believe.

But why would a rational person ignore what you do?


----------



## Silhouette

OffensivelyOpenMinded said:


> Of course it's important.


Thank you for that statement with common sense stark finality.  I agree.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> And that is the formula for the true, deep and actual sentiments of 90% of the folks who voted.  Feeling its important for a child to have both a mother and father AND being in support of "gay marriage" cannot exist in the same human mind.  Unless that mind is apathic or broken.



Says you, citing yourself. And you're the same hapless soul who hallucinated all sorts of gibberish about gay marriage, the 'LGBT cult', insane conspiracies about the 'gays infiltrating Gallup' and other nonsense from a message board straw poll that mentions none of them.

You...you realize that none of that is actually evidence, right?


----------



## mdk

90% of the poll's respondents believes Sil has a mentally ill obsession. Sure, neither of those are mentioned, but if one makes the logical jump...


----------



## Skylar

mdk said:


> 90% of the poll's respondents believes Sil has a mentally ill obsession. Sure, neither of those are mentioned, but if one makes the logical jump...



Laughing....makes as much sense as the insane horseshit that Sil has hallucinated into a random messageboard strawpoll.


----------



## Silhouette

90% believe a mother and father are both important in a child's life.  So, if they support gay marriage, they are either mentally ill or lying.


----------



## ChrisL

Silhouette said:


> 90% believe a mother and father are both important in a child's life.  So, if they support gay marriage, they are either mentally ill or lying.



Any one who dwells so much on this is mentally ill, so that would mean you are mentally ill.


----------



## ChrisL

Having GOOD parents is more important than having a "mother and father."  Having a mother and father doesn't mean shit if they aren't good parents.


----------



## Silhouette

ChrisL said:


> Having GOOD parents is more important than having a "mother and father."  Having a mother and father doesn't mean shit if they aren't good parents.


We're talking statistically, not your rare exception.  That strawman has been tried like what, a million times on this topic?  Maybe more?  

And pay attention here: the statistic says 90% believe it's important for a child to have BOTH a mother and father...


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> [
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 90%- i.e. 90 people here as USMB say that a mother and father are important to a child...55% of people in national polls say that they are in favor of marriage equality when asked specifically about marriage equality...*There is a reason why you have never started a poll actually asking people what they believe about marriage equality*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are correct.  And that reason is: current media manipulation and smoke and mirrors mass-hypnosis.  Though we can assume my poll here is more pure since it is a simple question of a millennial old phenomenon: a child wanting both a mother and father..
Click to expand...


Well my poll here at USMB was very clear and specific: Do you support marriage equality.

At last count 63% of respondents support marriage equality- remarkably close to the national polls- which you ignore.

No surprise that people are in favor of kids having parents- I sure am.

But most of those same people- myself included- are in favor of marriage equality.

Which you ignore because you are against marriage equality- and against the children of gay couples having married parents.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having GOOD parents is more important than having a "mother and father."  Having a mother and father doesn't mean shit if they aren't good parents.
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking statistically, not your rare exception.  That strawman has been tried like what, a million times on this topic?  Maybe more?
> 
> And pay attention here: the statistic says 90% believe it's important for a child to have BOTH a mother and father...
Click to expand...


*63% say they support marriage equality.*


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> they are either mentally ill or lying.



That describes you to the tee.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having GOOD parents is more important than having a "mother and father."  Having a mother and father doesn't mean shit if they aren't good parents.
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking statistically, not your rare exception.  That strawman has been tried like what, a million times on this topic?  Maybe more?
> 
> And pay attention here: the statistic says 90% believe it's important for a child to have BOTH a mother and father...
Click to expand...


Therefore, according to your logic,  90% condemn you for being a single mom since you denied your child a marriage with a father in their lives.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> 90% believe a mother and father are both important in a child's life.  So, if they support gay marriage, they are either mentally ill or lying.



Nope. That's your hallucination talking. It would the same useless source that told you Trump was going to lose the election in NY. 

Remember.....you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, Jen.


----------



## Skylar

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having GOOD parents is more important than having a "mother and father."  Having a mother and father doesn't mean shit if they aren't good parents.
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking statistically, not your rare exception.  That strawman has been tried like what, a million times on this topic?  Maybe more?
> 
> And pay attention here: the statistic says 90% believe it's important for a child to have BOTH a mother and father...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Therefore, according to your logic,  90% condemn you for being a single mom since you denied your child a marriage with a father in their lives.
Click to expand...


Does the 90% consider what Jen did to be child abuse? After all, single motherhood denies a child a father. 

Do you think she turned herself in?


----------



## Syriusly

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having GOOD parents is more important than having a "mother and father."  Having a mother and father doesn't mean shit if they aren't good parents.
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking statistically, not your rare exception.  That strawman has been tried like what, a million times on this topic?  Maybe more?
> 
> And pay attention here: the statistic says 90% believe it's important for a child to have BOTH a mother and father...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Therefore, according to your logic,  90% condemn you for being a single mom since you denied your child a marriage with a father in their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the 90% consider what Jen did to be child abuse? After all, single motherhood denies a child a father.
> 
> Do you think she turned herself in?
Click to expand...


If she didn't turn herself in- is she guilty of harboring a known criminal?


----------



## ChrisL

Somebody call the cops!    Lol.


----------



## Silhouette

theDoctorisIn said:


> I'm neither a Democrat, a Moderate, or a Republican, and none of your options describe my family life.


That's great.  But this thread is about a poll: statistics.  You are an exception quite obviously.  90% of the large number of people for USMB who responded said they felt it is important for a child to have both a mother and father.

The gist of this thread isn't the rare exception here or there.  The gist of this thread is how this 90% number in no way shape or form squares up with the propaganda the last 10 years we've been fed like through outlets like Facebook and other highly selective far left media "sources".  If 90% of folks are believing it's important for a child to have both a mother and father, they cannot at the same time be in support of gay marriage.

The equivalent would be like saying "I'm in favor of child safety restraints in passenger cars, but at the same time I don't believe all passenger cars should have child safety restraints."  You can't have both positions at once.  

So, we've been lied to by the left media about the real numbers behind gay marriage "support".  At most the general public can support 10% in favor.


----------



## Bonzi

No father.

(is it obvious?)


----------



## Silhouette

Bonzi said:


> No father.
> 
> (is it obvious?)


Look more closely at the poll.  It asks if you think it's important to have a father; not whether or not you had one.


----------



## Bonzi

hmmmm 

I think it's important to have both.
I think men and women were created differently (overall) - i mean there are ALWAYS exceptions....

but in my opinion, yeah, you should have a father.
but, maybe it's better to not have one than a bad one......


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm neither a Democrat, a Moderate, or a Republican, and none of your options describe my family life.
> 
> 
> 
> That's great.  But this thread is about a poll: statistics.  You are an exception quite obviously.  90% of the large number of people for USMB who responded said they felt it is important for a child to have both a mother and father.
> 
> The gist of this thread isn't the rare exception here or there.  The gist of this thread is how this 90% number in no way shape or form squares up with the propaganda the last 10 years we've been fed like through outlets like Facebook and other highly selective far left media "sources".  If 90% of folks are believing it's important for a child to have both a mother and father, they cannot at the same time be in support of gay marriage.
> 
> The equivalent would be like saying "I'm in favor of child safety restraints in passenger cars, but at the same time I don't believe all passenger cars should have child safety restraints."  You can't have both positions at once.
> 
> So, we've been lied to by the left media about the real numbers behind gay marriage "support".  At most the general public can support 10% in favor.
Click to expand...


Exactly. All the polls from credible organizations are wrong and should be flatly dismissed. Your moronic straw poll; on the other hand, is taking the real pulse of America. lol.

You do realize that most people do not care what lies you tell yourself, right?


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm neither a Democrat, a Moderate, or a Republican, and none of your options describe my family life.
> 
> 
> 
> That's great.  But this thread is about a poll: statistics.  You are an exception quite obviously.  90% of the large number of people for USMB who responded said they felt it is important for a child to have both a mother and father.
> 
> The gist of this thread isn't the rare exception here or there.  The gist of this thread is how this 90% number in no way shape or form squares up with the propaganda the last 10 years we've been fed like through outlets like Facebook and other highly selective far left media "sources".  If 90% of folks are believing it's important for a child to have both a mother and father, they cannot at the same time be in support of gay marriage.
Click to expand...


And here your hallucinations overwhelm you. The poll in this thread _says nothing about gay marriage. _

When people are actually asked about same sex marriage, they overwhelmingly support it:






And in yet another fit of helpless submission to the ravages of cognitive dissonance, you ignore it and imagine your own.



> The equivalent would be like saying "I'm in favor of child safety restraints in passenger cars, but at the same time I don't believe all passenger cars should have child safety restraints."  You can't have both positions at once.



It would be like saying "Single motherhood is not necessarily ideal, but it should certainly be legal.'

But of course, you give single mothers a pass from your own batshit standards....because you were one. If not for double standards, you'd have none at all.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Look more closely at the poll. It asks if you think it's important to have a father; not whether or not you had one.



I looked quite closely at your poll and it doesn't anything about gay marriage.

"You can't have both positions at once." Indeed.


----------



## Bonzi

People that think is small minded absolutes are missing a lot of information.

Ignorance is the most dangerous thing we are facing now.


----------



## Skylar

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm neither a Democrat, a Moderate, or a Republican, and none of your options describe my family life.
> 
> 
> 
> That's great.  But this thread is about a poll: statistics.  You are an exception quite obviously.  90% of the large number of people for USMB who responded said they felt it is important for a child to have both a mother and father.
> 
> The gist of this thread isn't the rare exception here or there.  The gist of this thread is how this 90% number in no way shape or form squares up with the propaganda the last 10 years we've been fed like through outlets like Facebook and other highly selective far left media "sources".  If 90% of folks are believing it's important for a child to have both a mother and father, they cannot at the same time be in support of gay marriage.
> 
> The equivalent would be like saying "I'm in favor of child safety restraints in passenger cars, but at the same time I don't believe all passenger cars should have child safety restraints."  You can't have both positions at once.
> 
> So, we've been lied to by the left media about the real numbers behind gay marriage "support".  At most the general public can support 10% in favor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. All the polls from credible organizations are wrong and should be flatly dismissed. Your moronic straw poll; on the other hand, is taking the real pulse of America. lol.
> 
> You do realize that most people do not care what lies you tell yourself, right?
Click to expand...


This helpless thumbsucking that Sil does is for Sil's benefit. With these bizarre lies little more than a rhetorical blankey.


----------



## mdk

Bonzi said:


> People that think is small minded absolutes are missing a lot of information.
> 
> Ignorance is the most dangerous thing we are facing now.



That is Silhouette's greatest export. lol


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> I looked quite closely at your poll and it doesn't anything about gay marriage.
> 
> .



Does it need to?  Gay marriage C-A-N-N-O-T provide either a mother or father, 100% of the time.  I'd like to think that people's most rudimentary reasoning centers of their brain could do the simplest of math on that issue.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I looked quite closely at your poll and it doesn't anything about gay marriage.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it need to?  Gay marriage C-A-N-N-O-T provide either a mother or father, 100% of the time.  I'd like to think that people's most rudimentary reasoning centers of their brain could do the simplest of math on that issue.
Click to expand...


Yes, it does. You can't claim your poll speaks to gay marriage if it doesn't _specifically_ ask about gay marriage. The reasoning center of your brain ignores anything and everything that doesn't buttress your rabidly anti-gay crusade.  

Save lying to yourself, there isn't a damn thing you can do to stop gays from marrying and raising their children. You would be wise to make peace with that fact.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I looked quite closely at your poll and it doesn't anything about gay marriage.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it need to?  Gay marriage C-A-N-N-O-T provide either a mother or father, 100% of the time.  I'd like to think that people's most rudimentary reasoning centers of their brain could do the simplest of math on that issue.
Click to expand...


Neither can single motherhood. But no one is calling for that to be illegal. And that's where your argument always breaks. As one can think its important to have a mother and father.....and still want same sex marriage to be legally recognized. 

As most folks clearly do:






As usual......you ignore anything that you don't want to believe. And imagine whatever you do want to believe.

No one gives a shit what lies you tell yourself.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> Look more closely at the poll.  It asks if you think it's important to have a father; *not whether or not you had one.*




Here is your poll question:  "*Did you have regular contact with both a mother and father in life *& think it was important?"

So ya, it basically asked if you had them.


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> Here is your poll question:  "*Did you have regular contact with both a mother and father in life *& think it was important?"
> 
> So ya, it basically asked if you had them.


Read the individual poll questions.  Don't play dumb.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is your poll question:  "*Did you have regular contact with both a mother and father in life *& think it was important?"
> 
> So ya, it basically asked if you had them.
> 
> 
> 
> Read the individual poll questions.  Don't play dumb.
Click to expand...


Laughing......says the poor soul that literally hallucinated all sort of inane gibberish about 'same sex marriage'. Where there isn't the slightest mention of it in the actual poll. 

By your own logic, your poll indicates that single motherhood should be illegal. But of course, you ignore your own standard with single mothers.....as you were one.

Even you don't buy your nonsense narrative.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Silhouette said:


> Look more closely at the poll.  It asks if you think it's important to have a father; *not whether or not you had one.*





WorldWatcher said:


> Here is your poll question:  "*Did you have regular contact with both a mother and father in life *& think it was important?"
> 
> So ya, it basically asked if you had them.





Silhouette said:


> Read the individual poll questions.  Don't play dumb.










That WAS the poll question.  Jeesh, you can't even read your own question!


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette

Here, idiot:



> *Did you have regular contact with both a mother and father in life & think it was important?*



Then:



> *No. But yes I longed for contact with both of them *



But then, I know you already knew that.  Trolling is such a nuisance to a website.


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Here, idiot:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Did you have regular contact with both a mother and father in life & think it was important?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No. But yes I longed for contact with both of them *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But then, I know you already knew that.  Trolling is such a nuisance to a website.
Click to expand...


And where does the poll make the slightest mention of same sex marriage?

Remember, we can only see the actual poll. Not your hallucinations.


----------



## Silhouette

Same sex marriage physically cannot provide both a mother and father.  Playing dumb will only last so long before your cards are called on the table Skylar.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Same sex marriage physically cannot provide both a mother and father.  Playing dumb will only last so long before your cards are called on the table Skylar.



Neither does being a single mother. Somehow your standard doesn't apply to you, though.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm neither a Democrat, a Moderate, or a Republican, and none of your options describe my family life.
> 
> 
> 
> That's great.  But this thread is about a poll: statistics.  You are an exception quite obviously.  90% of the large number of people for USMB who responded said they felt it is important for a child to have both a mother and father..
Click to expand...


65% of the people polled here at USMB support marriage equality- which by the way mirrors national polls.

Even by your bizarre interpretation of 'statistics'(not like any in my stat classes) the vast majority of people are in favor of marriage for Americans including gay Americans.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Same sex marriage physically cannot provide both a mother and father.  Playing dumb will only last so long before your cards are called on the table Skylar.



So the vast majority of the posters here at USMB believe you abused your children by raising them without a father.....


----------



## Skylar

Silhouette said:


> Same sex marriage physically cannot provide both a mother and father.



Neither can single motherhood. So per your bizarro interpretation of the poll......90% of 'people' think single motherhood should be outlawed?

If you really believe that, why didn't you turn yourself in?


----------



## Silhouette

I see Syriusly is digging up an old thread to show lopsided poll results.  My sampling here is MUCH larger.  And more illustrating on people's actual feelings about gay marriage.


----------



## ChrisL

I don't think gay marriage is a #1 issue on anyone's radar.  Who cares if some gay people want to marry one another?  Not me.  You seem to think that "gay" is contagious or something.


----------



## jillian

Silhouette said:


> I see Syriusly is digging up an old thread to show lopsided poll results.  My sampling here is MUCH larger.  And more illustrating on people's actual feelings about gay marriage.



whatever you think your "sampling" has no rational relationship to the real world


----------



## Claudette

ChrisL said:


> I don't think gay marriage is a #1 issue on anyone's radar.  Who cares if some gay people want to marry one another?  Not me.  You seem to think that "gay" is contagious or something.



I agree. I couldn't  care less if someone is gay and wants to marry another gay someone. Who the fuck cares?? Not me.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> I see Syriusly is digging up an old thread to show lopsided poll results.  My sampling here is MUCH larger.  And more illustrating on people's actual feelings about gay marriage.



LOL- hilariously funny lie about me. 

Another Silhouette anti-gay tantrum.


----------



## Silhouette

Well what you girls think doesn't affect the large poll at the top of the page does it?  I guess you all hate children so much you'd deprive them via legal contract of either a mother or father for life...like they don't even matter a much as everyone else does (who had both a mom at dad in marriage).


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Well what you girls think doesn't affect the large poll at the top of the page does it?  I guess you all hate children so much you'd deprive them via legal contract of either a mother or father for life...like they don't even matter a much as everyone else does (who had both a mom at dad in marriage).



We already know you hate children so much that you want to deprive them of married parents- if their parents are gay.


----------



## Jackson

I had contact with my mother and father, but it was a very dysfunctional relationship.  I prayed they would divorce, but that wasn't done in those years.  The acrimony was too great between the two and my brother and I suffered the consequences.


----------



## Jackson

Silhouette said:


> Well what you girls think doesn't affect the large poll at the top of the page does it?  I guess you all hate children so much you'd deprive them via legal contract of either a mother or father for life...like they don't even matter a much as everyone else does (who had both a mom at dad in marriage).


What do you know if you hadn't experienced it?


----------



## unno

this topic... AMERICA !!!!!!! it is a joke to see what is going on in the US now. the land was stolen but we tend to forget that... anyways, who i am to judge??? but here is a very Interested video i came across on youtube... check it out...

it’s showing how the world is laughing at the Americans Election…

Who's gon' be the next comedian? Actor? Joke? Clown? Puppet? In the Circus? Is it Miss KILLERY? or the TRUMPET?
Check out this youtube link and see what the world is thinking of American...


thanks


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Dhara said:


> I suspect you have an agenda, and view about it already.



Anyone that is still alive wants choices. If you must call that an agenda, who cares?


----------



## WorldWatcher

Syriusly said:


> We already know you hate children so much that you want to deprive them of married parents- if their parents are gay.




Well that's not true.

Sil doesn't mind denying children married parents if they (the parents) are heterosexual and decide to get divorced.



>>>>


----------



## unno

who cares? when the world is laughting at the american people and the Clowns who are bashing each other and want to rule the US !!!


----------



## unno

like the video... 

who is gon' be the next actor? joke? clown? puppet, in the circus?
is it miss KILLERY or the PUPPET?


----------



## Silhouette

WorldWatcher said:


> .
> 
> Sil doesn't mind denying children married parents if they (the parents) are heterosexual and decide to get divorced.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>


Who can then remarry and provide of contract the missing gender to the children again.  Never ever EVER happens with gays....married or divorced.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Sil doesn't mind denying children married parents if they (the parents) are heterosexual and decide to get divorced.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> Who can then remarry and provide of contract the missing gender to the children again.  Never ever EVER happens with gays....married or divorced.
Click to expand...


But you are fine with straight people denying their kids both parents- just that you want to hurt the children of gay parents by not letting their parent marry.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Sil doesn't mind denying children married parents if they (the parents) are heterosexual and decide to get divorced.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> Who can then remarry and provide of contract the missing gender to the children again.  Never ever EVER happens with gays....married or divorced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you are fine with straight people denying their kids both parents- just that you want to hurt the children of gay parents by not letting their parent marry.
Click to expand...


Do you want to get in the middle of a proposal? Sounds like you do.


----------



## Syriusly

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Sil doesn't mind denying children married parents if they (the parents) are heterosexual and decide to get divorced.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> Who can then remarry and provide of contract the missing gender to the children again.  Never ever EVER happens with gays....married or divorced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you are fine with straight people denying their kids both parents- just that you want to hurt the children of gay parents by not letting their parent marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want to get in the middle of a proposal? Sounds like you do.
Click to expand...


I am just very happy that children can have married parents- even if their parents are gay.

Silhouette is pissed off that those children can have married parents.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> But you are fine with straight people denying their kids both parents- just that you want to hurt the children of gay parents by not letting their parent marry.



Two people of the same gender can never ever procreate.  So calling them "parents" is not accurate.  What they are always, at least one, is "stepparent".  And neither supplies the vital role model missing.  Indeed they deny it to the children via legally binding contract.  Which violates the Infancy Doctrine.

To create law that denies children a vital necessity, is illegal and those laws are null and void.


----------



## Silhouette

OK, oddly 100 people voted in the poll (well that makes things easy!).  85% (across the entire political spectrum) said it was important to them to have both a mother and father.  That might explain election 2016.  (In hindsight I should've bumped this thread in August to clue in Hillary's people and other dems what was coming).

I think the poll is still open?  Not sure how long it stays open.   So if y'all want to keep weighing in, feel free.

I'm writing off the phenomenon of 85% to simple, common sense working class values...religious or not.  It seems it's just bedrock common sense to have marriage that includes both a mother and father for the sake of the children already there or everyone anticipates will arrive one way or another.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Syriusly said:


> [
> 
> I am just very happy that children can have married parents- even if their parents are gay.
> 
> Silhouette is pissed off that those children can have married parents.




What good does marriage do?  The POINT of marriage is to ensure children are raised by a FATHER and a MOTHER.

Homosexual "marriage" not only fails to accomplish this, but in fact exists purely to discredit real marriage.


----------



## Syriusly

Uncensored2008 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I am just very happy that children can have married parents- even if their parents are gay.
> 
> Silhouette is pissed off that those children can have married parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What good does marriage do?  The POINT of marriage is to ensure children are raised by a FATHER and a MOTHER.
> 
> Homosexual "marriage" not only fails to accomplish this, but in fact exists purely to discredit real marriage.
Click to expand...


Really? Then why did my 80 year old uncle marry his 75 year old blushing bride? The children of each of them were long since raised. 

I am guessing you have never been married- because I don't know how any straight married person could think that their marriage has been 'discredited' because Bob and Bill can marry now also. 

Marriage serves lots of purposes. If the couple does have children, then one of the things that marriage does do is provide additional economic security to the children. 

Remember- the main reason why children in America are not raised with a mother and a father- is because one- or both- of them has abandoned their children. 

Preventing Bob and Bill from marrying doesn't help a single child. But if Bob and Bill have kids, then it hurts their kids if they cannot marry.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> OK, oddly 100 people voted in the poll (well that makes things easy!).  85% (across the entire political spectrum) said it was important to them to have both a mother and father.  .



So what are you doing to ensure that every child in America has both a mother and a father?

How did that work out for your kids?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Syriusly said:


> Really? Then why did my 80 year old uncle marry his 75 year old blushing bride?



You communists all read from the same talking points.

Marriage is irrelevant outside of raising children. Societies have developed marriage specifically to entice males to remain with females for child rearing.



> The children of each of them were long since raised.
> 
> I am guessing you have never been married- because I don't know how any straight married person could think that their marriage has been 'discredited' because Bob and Bill can marry now also.
> 
> Marriage serves lots of purposes. If the couple does have children, then one of the things that marriage does do is provide additional economic security to the children.
> 
> Remember- the main reason why children in America are not raised with a mother and a father- is because one- or both- of them has abandoned their children.
> 
> Preventing Bob and Bill from marrying doesn't help a single child. But if Bob and Bill have kids, then it hurts their kids if they cannot marry.



Your talking points are stupid, and were stupid when Soros had them crafted a decade ago.

Bob and Bill raising a child is no benefit to the child. The child still lacks the critical structure of two gender exposure.


----------



## miketx

Silhouette said:


> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.


Your poll is clearly biased.


----------



## Syriusly

Uncensored2008 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Then why did my 80 year old uncle marry his 75 year old blushing bride?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You communists all read from the same talking points.y.
Click to expand...

.[/QUOTE]

You racists always say that.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Syriusly said:


> You racists always say that.



Well there you go, saying that a mother and father is important is "racist." 

Fucking Communists, you truly are the stupidest creatures on the planet.


----------



## Syriusly

Uncensored2008 said:


> [
> Bob and Bill raising a child is no benefit to the child. The child still lacks the critical structure of two gender exposure.



No benefit? Compared to a single father raising a child? You really think that the only benefit from marriage a child gets is exposure to another gender?

You haven't been married or been a parent have you.

The primary benefit any child gets from marriage(as opposed to just being with one or two parents) is greater economic security. 

Why do you want the children of gay couples to be less economically secure? 

Remember- depriving marriage from the parents of children doesn't help a single child- it doesn't magically produce an opposite gender parent- but it does harm those children.


----------



## Syriusly

Uncensored2008 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You racists always say that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well there you go, saying that a mother and father is important is "racist."
> .
Click to expand...


No- I am just saying you are fucking racist and you also kick puppies and trip little old ladies.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Syriusly said:


> No benefit? Compared to a single father raising a child?



Zero, zilch, nada. The single father will have plenty of friends to reenforce the male perspective.



> You really think that the only benefit from marriage a child gets is exposure to another gender?
> 
> You haven't been married or been a parent have you.



Again, your talking points are mentally retarded.

Two parents offer balance, yin and yang. It is critical to learn the life aspect of both mother and father.

After my first wife, I raised three girls by myself. Even as shitty as my first wife was, I grasped the impact of a female force on the dynamic.

You are a hack, you have zero understanding of an actual family.



> The primary benefit any child gets from marriage(as opposed to just being with one or two parents) is greater economic security.



Ignorant bullshit.



> Why do you want the children of gay couples to be less economically secure?
> 
> Remember- depriving marriage from the parents of children doesn't help a single child- it doesn't magically produce an opposite gender parent- but it does harm those children.



Homosexuals don't reproduce, moron. You seek to give homosexuals priority in adoption.

From what I can see, a two parent household is ideal. A one parent household is less. Two homosexuals is least, better than an orphanage, but inferior to a single parent.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Syriusly said:


> No- I am just saying you are fucking racist and you also kick puppies and trip little old ladies.



Well, that's just as accurate as the rest of the hate filled shit you post.


----------



## Syriusly

Uncensored2008 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No benefit? Compared to a single father raising a child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zero, zilch, nada. The single father will have plenty of friends to reenforce the male perspective..
Click to expand...


And two gay dads will have plenty of friends to reinforce either gender perspective.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Syriusly said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No benefit? Compared to a single father raising a child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zero, zilch, nada. The single father will have plenty of friends to reenforce the male perspective..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And two gay dads will have plenty of friends to reinforce either gender perspective.
Click to expand...


Friends don't cut it.

It is a vastly inferior proposition.

You Communists think that with sufficient political and popular media power you can dictate that water be dry.

Reality is, regardless of your delusions.


----------



## Syriusly

Uncensored2008 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No benefit? Compared to a single father raising a child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zero, zilch, nada. The single father will have plenty of friends to reenforce the male perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really think that the only benefit from marriage a child gets is exposure to another gender?
> 
> You haven't been married or been a parent have you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your talking points are mentally retarded.
> 
> Two parents offer balance, yin and yang. It is critical to learn the life aspect of both mother and father.
> 
> After my first wife, I raised three girls by myself. Even as shitty as my first wife was, I grasped the impact of a female force on the dynamic.t.
Click to expand...


So you claim to have been married and a father- amazing. 

You raised your 3 girls by yourself- good for you- like millions of single parents out there. And those kids do fine. 

Do I think that having both perspectives in the household is often beneficial- sure. But just as with you and your girls- we don't require it.

But if you think that is the only thing that having a spouse provides to your children- well your experience is far, far different from mine.

My wife does provide the alternative gender point of view- and she also runs our household, was at school every day through elementary school, and is still the one who goes to school to pick up our sick child. She did all of the things I could not do because I work a good job- but one that requires long hours.

We are a team my wife and I- not just two people who happen to be opposite gender. If I was gay, and my spouse was a man, he would be doing all of the same things EXCEPT providing the female perspective. 

You seem to think your girls would be better off with just a single dad, rather than with 2 dad's. But your girls would be missing not only the emotional perspective- but all of the financial, emotional, and logistics support that a second parent provides.


----------



## Syriusly

Uncensored2008 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No benefit? Compared to a single father raising a child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zero, zilch, nada. The single father will have plenty of friends to reenforce the male perspective..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And two gay dads will have plenty of friends to reinforce either gender perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Friends don't cut it..
Click to expand...


You were the one who brought up friends- not me- why the hell did you mention friends if they don't cut it?

_The single father will have plenty of friends to reenforce the male perspective._


----------



## Syriusly

Uncensored2008 said:


> [QU
> 
> 
> 
> The primary benefit any child gets from marriage(as opposed to just being with one or two parents) is greater economic security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant bullshit..
Click to expand...


You just described every one of your posts here at USMB.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Syriusly said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No benefit? Compared to a single father raising a child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zero, zilch, nada. The single father will have plenty of friends to reenforce the male perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really think that the only benefit from marriage a child gets is exposure to another gender?
> 
> You haven't been married or been a parent have you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your talking points are mentally retarded.
> 
> Two parents offer balance, yin and yang. It is critical to learn the life aspect of both mother and father.
> 
> After my first wife, I raised three girls by myself. Even as shitty as my first wife was, I grasped the impact of a female force on the dynamic.t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you claim to have been married and a father- amazing.
> 
> You raised your 3 girls by yourself- good for you- like millions of single parents out there. And those kids do fine.
> 
> Do I think that having both perspectives in the household is often beneficial- sure. But just as with you and your girls- we don't require it.
> 
> But if you think that is the only thing that having a spouse provides to your children- well your experience is far, far different from mine.
> 
> My wife does provide the alternative gender point of view- and she also runs our household, was at school every day through elementary school, and is still the one who goes to school to pick up our sick child. She did all of the things I could not do because I work a good job- but one that requires long hours.
> 
> We are a team my wife and I- not just two people who happen to be opposite gender. If I was gay, and my spouse was a man, he would be doing all of the same things EXCEPT providing the female perspective.
> 
> You seem to think your girls would be better off with just a single dad, rather than with 2 dad's. But your girls would be missing not only the emotional perspective- but all of the financial, emotional, and logistics support that a second parent provides.
Click to expand...


You Communists think that with sufficient political and popular media power you can dictate that water be dry.

Reality is, regardless of your delusions.


----------



## Syriusly

Uncensored2008 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No benefit? Compared to a single father raising a child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zero, zilch, nada. The single father will have plenty of friends to reenforce the male perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really think that the only benefit from marriage a child gets is exposure to another gender?
> 
> You haven't been married or been a parent have you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your talking points are mentally retarded.
> 
> Two parents offer balance, yin and yang. It is critical to learn the life aspect of both mother and father.
> 
> After my first wife, I raised three girls by myself. Even as shitty as my first wife was, I grasped the impact of a female force on the dynamic.t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you claim to have been married and a father- amazing.
> 
> You raised your 3 girls by yourself- good for you- like millions of single parents out there. And those kids do fine.
> 
> Do I think that having both perspectives in the household is often beneficial- sure. But just as with you and your girls- we don't require it.
> 
> But if you think that is the only thing that having a spouse provides to your children- well your experience is far, far different from mine.
> 
> My wife does provide the alternative gender point of view- and she also runs our household, was at school every day through elementary school, and is still the one who goes to school to pick up our sick child. She did all of the things I could not do because I work a good job- but one that requires long hours.
> 
> We are a team my wife and I- not just two people who happen to be opposite gender. If I was gay, and my spouse was a man, he would be doing all of the same things EXCEPT providing the female perspective.
> 
> You seem to think your girls would be better off with just a single dad, rather than with 2 dad's. But your girls would be missing not only the emotional perspective- but all of the financial, emotional, and logistics support that a second parent provides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You Communists think that
Click to expand...


You Fascists think that you can mandate that children be raised by a mother and father.


----------



## Syriusly

Uncensored2008 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No- I am just saying you are fucking racist and you also kick puppies and trip little old ladies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's just as accurate as the rest of the hate filled shit you post.
Click to expand...


I think that I have accurately described your hateful little life.


----------



## Syriusly

Uncensored2008 said:


> [
> From what I can see, a two parent household is ideal. A one parent household is less. Two homosexuals is least, better than an orphanage, but inferior to a single parent.



And why would they be 'inferior to a single parent'?

You think having only one income and no parent at home is better than either two incomes or an income and a parent at home to take care of the sick kid?

Really? 

You fascists always seem to rationalize why you want to discriminate against children and gays.


----------



## Syriusly

Uncensored2008 said:


> [Q
> Homosexuals don't reproduce, moron. You seek to give homosexuals priority in adoption.t.



Homosexuals reproduce just fine. One of my best friend is the father of two lovely children. 

But I don't seek to give anyone a priority in adoption- except vetted parents who want to care and love the children abandoned by their own parents.

You fascists are the one who wants to prioritize adoption by the parents sexual preference.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> You Fascists think that you can mandate that children be raised by a mother and father.



Won't mandate it.  But to encourage it, each state sets the parameters they know is best for the ideal formative environment for children.  It's called marriage.  Psychologists understand that children do better over all with both a mother and father. Gay marriage legally removes that even as a chance for any children involved.


----------



## Silhouette

The problem the LGBT professional bloggers are having here with the poll is that it clearly shows that 85% of people, when it comes to the children involved, do not approve of gay marriage.  There is no other way to conclude the results.  It may be that folks simply hadn't thought about marriage being about children first and foremost...like the courts do when they refuse to divide children from the divorcing mother or father.  But once they think about it, they realize_ "oh yeah...I forgot about the kids involved in marriage!"  "Hey...wait a minute...doesn't gay marriage permanently separate children from even the chance of a mother or father...for life...by contract??!"
_
Yes.  Yes it does.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> The problem the LGBT professional bloggers are having here with the poll is that it clearly shows that 85% of people, when it comes to the children involved, do not approve of gay marriage.  There is no other way to conclude the results.  It may be that folks simply hadn't thought about marriage being about children first and foremost...like the courts do when they refuse to divide children from the divorcing mother or father.  But once they think about it, they realize_ "oh yeah...I forgot about the kids involved in marriage!"  "Hey...wait a minute...doesn't gay marriage permanently separate children from even the chance of a mother or father...for life...by contract??!"
> _
> Yes.  Yes it does.



85% of the people that voted believe ice-cream causes cancer. Sure it doesn't ask that question, but I am assigning whatever finding that fits my rabid anti-dairy narrative.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You Fascists think that you can mandate that children be raised by a mother and father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Won't mandate it.  But to encourage it, each state sets the parameters they know is best for the ideal formative environment for children.  It's called marriage.  Psychologists understand that children do better over all with both a mother and father. Gay marriage legally removes that even as a chance for any children involved.
Click to expand...


How do you know when Silhouette lies?

She posts at USMB.

Gay marriage does not change the parenting for a single child. You know that but you lie in order to harm those children.

Whether Bob and Bill marry- or don't marry- they are still parents. You just don't want their children to have married parents.

Because you want to hurt Bob and Bill- by harming their children.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> The problem the LGBT professional bloggers .



The problem with Silhouette is she believes the voices in her head.


----------



## Silhouette

The fact still remains....85% of the 100 who voted in this poll would disagree with a marriage that took away either a mother or father for life by that type of marriage's contract.


----------



## Divine Wind

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly makes this a current event?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the question of removing children from the hope of either a mother or father for life as a matter of contract is a current event.
Click to expand...

Deporting illegal minors?


----------



## Silhouette

Divine.Wind said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly makes this a current event?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the question of removing children from the hope of either a mother or father for life as a matter of contract is a current event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deporting illegal minors?
Click to expand...

More like a contract that makes it impossible for kids to have either a mother or father...for life..


----------



## Divine Wind

Silhouette said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly makes this a current event?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the question of removing children from the hope of either a mother or father for life as a matter of contract is a current event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deporting illegal minors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More like a contract that makes it impossible for kids to have either a mother or father...for life..
Click to expand...

A contract with whom?  When have US citizens not been allowed to keep their children without just cause?


----------



## Silhouette

Divine.Wind said:


> A contract with whom?  When have US citizens not been allowed to keep their children without just cause?


 
Are you trying to introduce a strawman? Yes, looks like you are.  When you're ready to talk about the implications of the poll's results at the top of the page, let us know.


----------



## Divine Wind

Silhouette said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> A contract with whom?  When have US citizens not been allowed to keep their children without just cause?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to introduce a strawman? Yes, looks like you are.  When you're ready to talk about the implications of the poll's results at the top of the page, let us know.
Click to expand...

I'm just asking questions.  You seem to be evasive.

*Did you have regular contact with both a mother and father in life & think it was important?*
_*(I'm a moderate/independent) Yes. And yes it was important to me_
_17 vote(s) 16.2%_

What are the implications of my response?


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> A contract with whom?  When have US citizens not been allowed to keep their children without just cause?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to introduce a strawman? Yes, looks like you are.  When you're ready to talk about the implications of the poll's results at the top of the page, let us know.
Click to expand...




Divine.Wind said:


> I'm just asking questions.  You seem to be evasive.
> 
> *Did you have regular contact with both a mother and father in life & think it was important?*
> _*(I'm a moderate/independent) Yes. And yes it was important to me_
> _17 vote(s) 16.2%_
> 
> What are the implications of my response?



Start a thread on the separate subject and I'd be happy to answer you.  I asked you to discuss the results of the poll, not how you yourself voted.  You are one out of 100.  When you're ready to discuss how the 100 voted, let me know..


----------



## Divine Wind

Silhouette said:


> Start a thread on the separate subject and I'd be happy to answer you.  I asked you to discuss the results of the poll, not how you yourself voted.  You are one out of 100.  When you're ready to discuss how the 100 voted, let me know..


I'm among the 84ish of those who said "yes it was important to me" yet you have no interest in discussing it.  You seem to be avoiding discussing your own thread.  If you want me to leave, I shall.  If you want to discuss the implications of "yes it was important to me" then please be honest and say what is on your mind.


----------



## yiostheoy

Gold star kid here.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> Start a thread on the separate subject and I'd be happy to answer you.  I asked you to discuss the results of the poll, not how you yourself voted.  You are one out of 100.  When you're ready to discuss how the 100 voted, let me know..





Divine.Wind said:


> I'm among the 84ish of those who said "yes it was important to me" yet you have no interest in discussing it.  You seem to be avoiding discussing your own thread.  If you want me to leave, I shall.  If you want to discuss the implications of "yes it was important to me" then please be honest and say what is on your mind.


Well do you think it's possible to at the same time find it "important" of an ideal for children to have regular mother/father contact and at the same time support gay marriage which denies that to children involved in the preponderance (almost universally) of cases...by contract...for life..?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> The fact still remains....85% of the 100 who voted in this poll would disagree with a marriage that took away either a mother or father for life by that type of marriage's contract.



The fact remains that the poll didn't say that.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start a thread on the separate subject and I'd be happy to answer you.  I asked you to discuss the results of the poll, not how you yourself voted.  You are one out of 100.  When you're ready to discuss how the 100 voted, let me know..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm among the 84ish of those who said "yes it was important to me" yet you have no interest in discussing it.  You seem to be avoiding discussing your own thread.  If you want me to leave, I shall.  If you want to discuss the implications of "yes it was important to me" then please be honest and say what is on your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well do you think it's possible to at the same time find it "important" of an ideal for children to have regular mother/father contact and at the same time support gay marriage which denies that to children involved in the preponderance (almost universally) of cases...by contract...for life..?
Click to expand...


Gay marriage denies children nothing. No more than divorce denies children 'regular contact with their mother or father'.

Denying marriage to a gay couple doesn't help a single child.

But it does hurt the children of gay couples.

Why do you want to hurt those children?


----------



## Divine Wind

Silhouette said:


> Well do you think it's possible to at the same time find it "important" of an ideal for children to have regular mother/father contact and at the same time support gay marriage which denies that to children involved in the preponderance (almost universally) of cases...by contract...for life..?


I think it's important for children to have parents not state-sponsored orphanages. 

200,000+ years of Homo Sapien evolution has shown that there are reasons why men and women are different on the inside as well as the outside.  That said, loving parents who are a gay/lesbian couple are much more preferable to an orphanage or being bounced around foster homes, which all to often are using children to pay their mortgage. 

While I doubt a gay/lesbian couple provide the same exact form of parentage as a straight couple, the bigger problem is social assholes; those who hate anyone different than themselves.  Several years ago a Marine Corps general testified to Congress he wouldn't want his homosexual son to serve in the military.  Not because he didn't love his son or because he thought his son couldn't hack it, but because he feared for his son's well-being in a culture predisposed to attacking gays. 

What are your thoughts on the question you asked me?


----------



## Spare_change

Interesting to note that there is a virtual unanimity that a two parent family is important, but yet one political party actively promotes single parenthood.

And, then they wonder why they lost.


----------



## Silhouette

Spare_change said:


> Interesting to note that there is a virtual unanimity that a two parent family is important, but yet one political party actively promotes single parenthood.
> 
> *And, then they wonder why they lost.*




If by "two parent" you mean mother & father...

Yes, it's really a big mystery!


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Syriusly said:


> Denying marriage to a gay couple doesn't help a single child.
> 
> But it does hurt the children of gay couples.
> 
> Why do you want to hurt those children?



  The children of gay couples are already hurt, in that they are being denied a chance at a proper upbringing in an intact family with a father and a mother.  Establishing a sick mockery of a “marriage” between the homosexual “parents” does nothing to mitigate this harm.


----------



## Divine Wind

Bob Blaylock said:


> The children of gay couples are already hurt, in that they are being denied a chance at a proper upbringing in an intact family with a father and a mother.  Establishing a sick mockery of a “marriage” between the homosexual “parents” does nothing to mitigate this harm.


What do you propose as a solution?  Forcing mothers and fathers to marry and live together?  What if they don't comply?  Life in prison or just 18 years?  LOL


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denying marriage to a gay couple doesn't help a single child.
> 
> But it does hurt the children of gay couples.
> 
> Why do you want to hurt those children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The children of gay couples are already hurt, in that they are being denied a chance at a proper upbringing in an intact family with a father and a mother.  Establishing a sick mockery of a “marriage” between the homosexual “parents” does nothing to mitigate this harm.
Click to expand...


Denying marriage to their parents does not help those children- it only hurts those children- by denying them the legal protections that the children of married couples get.

So why do you want their children to be hurt?

Just so you can feel better about your own marriage?


----------



## Syriusly

Spare_change said:


> Interesting to note that there is a virtual unanimity that a two parent family is important, but yet one political party actively promotes single parenthood..



Which party is against single parents? 

Must be the party that is advocating to end divorce......and requiring single parents to marry........oh wait....no party is doing that.


----------



## Syriusly

Divine.Wind said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well do you think it's possible to at the same time find it "important" of an ideal for children to have regular mother/father contact and at the same time support gay marriage which denies that to children involved in the preponderance (almost universally) of cases...by contract...for life..?
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's important for children to have parents not state-sponsored orphanages.
> 
> 200,000+ years of Homo Sapien evolution has shown that there are reasons why men and women are different on the inside as well as the outside.  That said, loving parents who are a gay/lesbian couple are much more preferable to an orphanage or being bounced around foster homes, which all to often are using children to pay their mortgage.
Click to expand...


Silhouette and all of the rest of the anti-gay marriage folks don't want to deal with that- for many reasons.

First and foremost- kids are just a smoke screen for them- a flimsy rationalization that they paper their opposition to gay marriage with. They are against gay marriage regardless of whether kids are involved or not- they just use kids as a tool to attack gay marriage.

Secondly- as I keep pointing out- and that they absolutely shy away from- denying marriage to gays just doesn't help anyone- it only hurts people. 

Most of the gay couples who marry don't have children- it is a non-issue. Just as it is for a large portion of hetero couples who marry- including my 80 year old uncle who married last year. 

For the couples who do have children- or plan on having children- denying the couples marriage doesn't miraculously provide straight parents to the kids. It only means those kids don't have married parents- which harms the kids. 

I can never get a straight answer from these folks- they won't come right out and say that what they really want is for government to take these kids away from their parents- or maybe make it illegal for gays to procreate- but only actions like that would achieve what they say that they want- which is to not have any children being raised by gay parents. 

Finally we come to adoption- here are the rough numbers:
100,000 children a year eligible and waiting for adoption- virtually all abandoned by their biological parents that Silhouette and her fellow travellers insist are better parents than gays are.
33,000 wait 5 years or more to be adopted.
23,000 foster kids age out of the system each year with no family to provide financial or emotional support.

Silhouette and the others don't want gays to adopt any of these kids. They prefer the kids stay in foster care, and age out of the system rather than be adopted by a person or couple that want to make a life time commitment to be these kids family.


----------



## Divine Wind

Syriusly said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well do you think it's possible to at the same time find it "important" of an ideal for children to have regular mother/father contact and at the same time support gay marriage which denies that to children involved in the preponderance (almost universally) of cases...by contract...for life..?
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's important for children to have parents not state-sponsored orphanages.
> 
> 200,000+ years of Homo Sapien evolution has shown that there are reasons why men and women are different on the inside as well as the outside.  That said, loving parents who are a gay/lesbian couple are much more preferable to an orphanage or being bounced around foster homes, which all to often are using children to pay their mortgage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silhouette and all of the rest of the anti-gay marriage folks don't want to deal with that- for many reasons.
> 
> First and foremost- kids are just a smoke screen for them- a flimsy rationalization that they paper their opposition to gay marriage with. They are against gay marriage regardless of whether kids are involved or not- they just use kids as a tool to attack gay marriage.
> 
> Secondly- as I keep pointing out- and that they absolutely shy away from- denying marriage to gays just doesn't help anyone- it only hurts people.
> 
> Most of the gay couples who marry don't have children- it is a non-issue. Just as it is for a large portion of hetero couples who marry- including my 80 year old uncle who married last year.
> 
> For the couples who do have children- or plan on having children- denying the couples marriage doesn't miraculously provide straight parents to the kids. It only means those kids don't have married parents- which harms the kids.
> 
> I can never get a straight answer from these folks- they won't come right out and say that what they really want is for government to take these kids away from their parents- or maybe make it illegal for gays to procreate- but only actions like that would achieve what they say that they want- which is to not have any children being raised by gay parents.
> 
> Finally we come to adoption- here are the rough numbers:
> 100,000 children a year eligible and waiting for adoption- virtually all abandoned by their biological parents that Silhouette and her fellow travellers insist are better parents than gays are.
> 33,000 wait 5 years or more to be adopted.
> 23,000 foster kids age out of the system each year with no family to provide financial or emotional support.
> 
> Silhouette and the others don't want gays to adopt any of these kids. They prefer the kids stay in foster care, and age out of the system rather than be adopted by a person or couple that want to make a life time commitment to be these kids family.
Click to expand...

Children should have loving parents, but as you pointed out, there are several who are against such things for various reasons.


----------



## Syriusly

Divine.Wind said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well do you think it's possible to at the same time find it "important" of an ideal for children to have regular mother/father contact and at the same time support gay marriage which denies that to children involved in the preponderance (almost universally) of cases...by contract...for life..?
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's important for children to have parents not state-sponsored orphanages.
> 
> 200,000+ years of Homo Sapien evolution has shown that there are reasons why men and women are different on the inside as well as the outside.  That said, loving parents who are a gay/lesbian couple are much more preferable to an orphanage or being bounced around foster homes, which all to often are using children to pay their mortgage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silhouette and all of the rest of the anti-gay marriage folks don't want to deal with that- for many reasons.
> 
> First and foremost- kids are just a smoke screen for them- a flimsy rationalization that they paper their opposition to gay marriage with. They are against gay marriage regardless of whether kids are involved or not- they just use kids as a tool to attack gay marriage.
> 
> Secondly- as I keep pointing out- and that they absolutely shy away from- denying marriage to gays just doesn't help anyone- it only hurts people.
> 
> Most of the gay couples who marry don't have children- it is a non-issue. Just as it is for a large portion of hetero couples who marry- including my 80 year old uncle who married last year.
> 
> For the couples who do have children- or plan on having children- denying the couples marriage doesn't miraculously provide straight parents to the kids. It only means those kids don't have married parents- which harms the kids.
> 
> I can never get a straight answer from these folks- they won't come right out and say that what they really want is for government to take these kids away from their parents- or maybe make it illegal for gays to procreate- but only actions like that would achieve what they say that they want- which is to not have any children being raised by gay parents.
> 
> Finally we come to adoption- here are the rough numbers:
> 100,000 children a year eligible and waiting for adoption- virtually all abandoned by their biological parents that Silhouette and her fellow travellers insist are better parents than gays are.
> 33,000 wait 5 years or more to be adopted.
> 23,000 foster kids age out of the system each year with no family to provide financial or emotional support.
> 
> Silhouette and the others don't want gays to adopt any of these kids. They prefer the kids stay in foster care, and age out of the system rather than be adopted by a person or couple that want to make a life time commitment to be these kids family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Children should have loving parents, but as you pointed out, there are several who are against such things for various reasons.
Click to expand...


And we have no requirement that children have loving parents. Hell we no have requirements on becoming parents at all- any fertile man and woman can get drunk at a bar one night and end up pregnant- and they are legally presumed to be competent parents until proven otherwise. 

Only when it comes to gay parents do these people demand different expectations.


----------



## Silhouette

Divine.Wind said:


> Children should have loving parents, but as you pointed out, there are several who are against such things for various reasons.



"Various reasons.."  You mean like the thousands of studies that show a boy having a father and a girl having a mother is vital to their wellbeing?  We're talking overwhelming preponderance in statistics...not Syriusly's "rare exceptions to the rule".  We set gold standards (marriage) by statistics, not rare exceptions to them.


----------



## Divine Wind

Silhouette said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children should have loving parents, but as you pointed out, there are several who are against such things for various reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Various reasons.."  You mean like the thousands of studies that show a boy having a father and a girl having a mother is vital to their wellbeing?  We're talking overwhelming preponderance in statistics...not Syriusly's "rare exceptions to the rule".  We set gold standards (marriage) by statistics, not rare exceptions to them.
Click to expand...

Vital?  No.  Air, Food and Water are vital.  Love and education are very important.  Feel free to cite any studies you prefer.


----------



## Divine Wind

Syriusly said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well do you think it's possible to at the same time find it "important" of an ideal for children to have regular mother/father contact and at the same time support gay marriage which denies that to children involved in the preponderance (almost universally) of cases...by contract...for life..?
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's important for children to have parents not state-sponsored orphanages.
> 
> 200,000+ years of Homo Sapien evolution has shown that there are reasons why men and women are different on the inside as well as the outside.  That said, loving parents who are a gay/lesbian couple are much more preferable to an orphanage or being bounced around foster homes, which all to often are using children to pay their mortgage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silhouette and all of the rest of the anti-gay marriage folks don't want to deal with that- for many reasons.
> 
> First and foremost- kids are just a smoke screen for them- a flimsy rationalization that they paper their opposition to gay marriage with. They are against gay marriage regardless of whether kids are involved or not- they just use kids as a tool to attack gay marriage.
> 
> Secondly- as I keep pointing out- and that they absolutely shy away from- denying marriage to gays just doesn't help anyone- it only hurts people.
> 
> Most of the gay couples who marry don't have children- it is a non-issue. Just as it is for a large portion of hetero couples who marry- including my 80 year old uncle who married last year.
> 
> For the couples who do have children- or plan on having children- denying the couples marriage doesn't miraculously provide straight parents to the kids. It only means those kids don't have married parents- which harms the kids.
> 
> I can never get a straight answer from these folks- they won't come right out and say that what they really want is for government to take these kids away from their parents- or maybe make it illegal for gays to procreate- but only actions like that would achieve what they say that they want- which is to not have any children being raised by gay parents.
> 
> Finally we come to adoption- here are the rough numbers:
> 100,000 children a year eligible and waiting for adoption- virtually all abandoned by their biological parents that Silhouette and her fellow travellers insist are better parents than gays are.
> 33,000 wait 5 years or more to be adopted.
> 23,000 foster kids age out of the system each year with no family to provide financial or emotional support.
> 
> Silhouette and the others don't want gays to adopt any of these kids. They prefer the kids stay in foster care, and age out of the system rather than be adopted by a person or couple that want to make a life time commitment to be these kids family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Children should have loving parents, but as you pointed out, there are several who are against such things for various reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we have no requirement that children have loving parents. Hell we no have requirements on becoming parents at all- any fertile man and woman can get drunk at a bar one night and end up pregnant- and they are legally presumed to be competent parents until proven otherwise.
> 
> Only when it comes to gay parents do these people demand different expectations.
Click to expand...

There is no law against being a parent, but there are laws on adoption.


----------



## Syriusly

Divine.Wind said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well do you think it's possible to at the same time find it "important" of an ideal for children to have regular mother/father contact and at the same time support gay marriage which denies that to children involved in the preponderance (almost universally) of cases...by contract...for life..?
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's important for children to have parents not state-sponsored orphanages.
> 
> 200,000+ years of Homo Sapien evolution has shown that there are reasons why men and women are different on the inside as well as the outside.  That said, loving parents who are a gay/lesbian couple are much more preferable to an orphanage or being bounced around foster homes, which all to often are using children to pay their mortgage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silhouette and all of the rest of the anti-gay marriage folks don't want to deal with that- for many reasons.
> 
> First and foremost- kids are just a smoke screen for them- a flimsy rationalization that they paper their opposition to gay marriage with. They are against gay marriage regardless of whether kids are involved or not- they just use kids as a tool to attack gay marriage.
> 
> Secondly- as I keep pointing out- and that they absolutely shy away from- denying marriage to gays just doesn't help anyone- it only hurts people.
> 
> Most of the gay couples who marry don't have children- it is a non-issue. Just as it is for a large portion of hetero couples who marry- including my 80 year old uncle who married last year.
> 
> For the couples who do have children- or plan on having children- denying the couples marriage doesn't miraculously provide straight parents to the kids. It only means those kids don't have married parents- which harms the kids.
> 
> I can never get a straight answer from these folks- they won't come right out and say that what they really want is for government to take these kids away from their parents- or maybe make it illegal for gays to procreate- but only actions like that would achieve what they say that they want- which is to not have any children being raised by gay parents.
> 
> Finally we come to adoption- here are the rough numbers:
> 100,000 children a year eligible and waiting for adoption- virtually all abandoned by their biological parents that Silhouette and her fellow travellers insist are better parents than gays are.
> 33,000 wait 5 years or more to be adopted.
> 23,000 foster kids age out of the system each year with no family to provide financial or emotional support.
> 
> Silhouette and the others don't want gays to adopt any of these kids. They prefer the kids stay in foster care, and age out of the system rather than be adopted by a person or couple that want to make a life time commitment to be these kids family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Children should have loving parents, but as you pointed out, there are several who are against such things for various reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we have no requirement that children have loving parents. Hell we no have requirements on becoming parents at all- any fertile man and woman can get drunk at a bar one night and end up pregnant- and they are legally presumed to be competent parents until proven otherwise.
> 
> Only when it comes to gay parents do these people demand different expectations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no law against being a parent, but there are laws on adoption.
Click to expand...


Yeah- it is really a weird conundrum- an two fools can have a baby and be presumed to be competent parents.

But if you want to adopt a child abandoned by those two fools, you need to prove to the government that you are capable and willing to be a good parent. For the protection of the children awaiting adoption.

Now I happen agree that all prospective adoptive parents should be screened- but there is a rather glaring hypocrisy(and one I have no answer for) that we have no such screening for prospective biological parents.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children should have loving parents, but as you pointed out, there are several who are against such things for various reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Various reasons.."  You mean like the thousands of studies that show a boy having a father and a girl having a mother is vital to their wellbeing?  .
Click to expand...


"that show a boy having a father and a girl having a mother is vital to their wellbeing?"

And here we start the cycle again:

"But Silhouette- if that is the case why are you not against divorce"

And then Silhouette says: "well its not having a father and mother that is vital- its the hope that they might have one"

Which of course no study supports- ever- but the voices in her head sure tell her that alot.


----------



## Divine Wind

Syriusly said:


> ....Now I happen agree that all prospective adoptive parents should be screened- but there is a rather glaring hypocrisy(and one I have no answer for)* that we have no such screening for prospective biological parents.*


The world has dallied with eugenics before.  Doing it again might be a mistake.


----------



## Syriusly

Divine.Wind said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....Now I happen agree that all prospective adoptive parents should be screened- but there is a rather glaring hypocrisy(and one I have no answer for)* that we have no such screening for prospective biological parents.*
> 
> 
> 
> The world has dallied with eugenics before.  Doing it again might be a mistake.
Click to expand...


Oh I agree- i was just pointing out the intellectual hypocrisy of our position of biological versus adoptive parents.


----------



## Divine Wind

Syriusly said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....Now I happen agree that all prospective adoptive parents should be screened- but there is a rather glaring hypocrisy(and one I have no answer for)* that we have no such screening for prospective biological parents.*
> 
> 
> 
> The world has dallied with eugenics before.  Doing it again might be a mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I agree- i was just pointing out the intellectual hypocrisy of our position of biological versus adoptive parents.
Click to expand...

It's one thing for biological parents to abuse their children then have those children removed for their safe keeping.  It's another thing for the state to hand those children to abusive parents.  That's the big difference. 

While I agree there is hypocrisy against gay parents, it's not the same thing.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Syriusly said:


> Denying marriage to their parents does not help those children- it only hurts those children- by denying them the legal protections that the children of married couples get.
> 
> So why do you want their children to be hurt?
> 
> Just so you can feel better about your own marriage?



  There is no such thing as a marriage between two people of the same sex.  Treating a sick homosexual mockery of marriage as having any similarity to genuine marriage only cheapens and degrades the concept of marriage, and it does nothing at all to help those poor children who have been placed in a morally-unstable situation to be raised by sick perverts.

  In advocating and defending this abuse of children, you forfeit any credibility in claiming any concern for their well-being.  You reveal yourself to be staunchly-aligned with child-abusing sex perverts; against the interests of children.


----------



## Silhouette

Bob Blaylock said:


> There is no such thing as a marriage between two people of the same sex.  Treating a sick homosexual mockery of marriage as having any similarity to genuine marriage only cheapens and degrades the concept of marriage, and it does nothing at all to help those poor children who have been placed in a morally-unstable situation to be raised by sick perverts.
> 
> *In advocating and defending this abuse of children, you forfeit any credibility in claiming any concern for their well-being.  You reveal yourself to be staunchly-aligned with child-abusing sex perverts; against the interests of children*.



Thank you.    And it looks like 85% of Americans agree with you.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Thank you.  And it looks like 85% of Americans agree with you.



Proving yet again that self-delusion is the greatest of all human talents.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Silhouette said:


> Thank you.    And it looks like 85% of Americans agree with you.



  Have you see this thread?  The depravity of the left *wrong* knows no limits.  This is an ideology that is willing to sacrifice innocent children on the alters of sexual perversion, insanity, and cold-blooded murder (abortion).


----------



## Silhouette

Bob Blaylock said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.    And it looks like 85% of Americans agree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you see this thread?  The depravity of the left *wrong* knows no limits.  This is an ideology that is willing to sacrifice innocent children on the alters of sexual perversion, insanity, and cold-blooded murder (abortion).
Click to expand...

Thanks for that link.  No I hadn't seen it.  But let's say I didn't fall down in shock having read it.  This cult wants children to be as perverse as possible, as young as possible...so their fresh meat supply will not run dry. 

I've always said, even the cult itself does not know its own limits.  Yet it will insist you accept them each new day they roll out deeper depravity...OR ELSE.  Until election 2016 that is... The first thing the new administration should do is drain the swamp at the FCC.  Then this crap would never find an audience in the first place.  They're trying to normalize child sexual abuse into yet another generation.  Best nip that shit in the bud right at the root.


----------



## Silhouette

Divine.Wind said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....Now I happen agree that all prospective adoptive parents should be screened- but there is a rather glaring hypocrisy(and one I have no answer for)* that we have no such screening for prospective biological parents.*
> 
> 
> 
> The world has dallied with eugenics before.  Doing it again might be a mistake.
Click to expand...

Syriusly has problems pounding the square peg of her deviant sex utopia into the round hole of reality.


----------



## Divine Wind

Bob Blaylock said:


> There is no such thing as a marriage between two people of the same sex.  *Treating a sick homosexual mockery of marriage as having any similarity to genuine marriage only cheapens and degrades the concept of marriage*, and it does nothing at all to help those poor children who have been placed in a morally-unstable situation to be raised by sick perverts.
> 
> In advocating and defending this abuse of children, you forfeit any credibility in claiming any concern for their well-being.  You reveal yourself to be staunchly-aligned with child-abusing sex perverts; against the interests of children.


Would you ban divorce or multiple-marriages because they, too, cheapen and degrade marriage? 

Newt Gingrich  3 marriages.

Rush Limbaugh 4 marriages.

Rudy Giuliani 3 marriages.

Donald Trump  3 marriages


----------



## Silhouette

Divine.Wind said:


> Would you ban divorce or multiple-marriages because they, too, cheapen and degrade marriage?
> 
> Newt Gingrich  3 marriages....Rush Limbaugh 4 marriages....Rudy Giuliani 3 marriages....Donald Trump  3 marriages


They don't degrade marriage where children are regarded.  The divorce preserves the part of the contract of mother/father for the sake of children's continued contact with both.  A divorce reluctantly granted where two adults are at each other's throats daily, is in favor of the children, removing the hostility from their daily lives while still preserving the benefit via contract of mother and father to the kids.

So your question is a strawman.  Perfection in marriage is never achieved.  But that doesn't mean you take down the gold ring standard for people to try to grab for.


----------



## Divine Wind

Silhouette said:


> ....So your question is a strawman....


How was it a straw man?   He posted "_Treating a sick homosexual mockery of marriage as having any similarity to genuine marriage only cheapens and degrades the concept of marriage_".  I even bolded it so the less intelligent members could see what part I was referencing.  Then I asked a question: "_Would you ban divorce or multiple-marriages because they, too, cheapen and degrade marriage?_"  

A question you are dodging with your false accusations.  The fact remains, every fucking gay in California could marry each other in the worlds largest pink sword fight and it would not affect my wife's and my marriage one iota.   The straw man is morons trying to say someone outside a marriage degrades that marriage.  It doesn't.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> ....So your question is a strawman....





Divine.Wind said:


> How was it a straw man?   He posted "_Treating a sick homosexual mockery of marriage as having any similarity to genuine marriage only cheapens and degrades the concept of marriage_".  I even bolded it so the less intelligent members could see what part I was referencing.  Then I asked a question: "_Would you ban divorce or multiple-marriages because they, too, cheapen and degrade marriage?_"
> 
> A question you are dodging with your false accusations.  The fact remains, every fucking gay in California could marry each other in the worlds largest pink sword fight and it would not affect my wife's and my marriage one iota.   The straw man is morons trying to say someone outside a marriage degrades that marriage.  It doesn't.


It does cheapen and degrade marriage FROM THE GET-GO, WHERE CHILDREN ARE INVOLVED or anticipated to be involved (re: all marriages).  He was correct in saying that.

YOUR strawman was to say "divorce of normal married people cheapens marriage where children are involved".  It does not.  Divorce is RELUCTANTLY granted and even then the children still receive the vital mother & father benefits of it long after it is dissolved.  Proving my assertion that the marriage contract is primary for children's benefits and secondarily for the benefits of adults.  The primary beneficiaries still retain mother & father upon divorce. 

Gay marriage NEVER provides both a mother and father.  Ergo, it cheapens and sullies the institution beyond repair where the primary beneficaries are concerned..


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....So your question is a strawman....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> How was it a straw man?   He posted "_Treating a sick homosexual mockery of marriage as having any similarity to genuine marriage only cheapens and degrades the concept of marriage_".  I even bolded it so the less intelligent members could see what part I was referencing.  Then I asked a question: "_Would you ban divorce or multiple-marriages because they, too, cheapen and degrade marriage?_"
> 
> A question you are dodging with your false accusations.  The fact remains, every fucking gay in California could marry each other in the worlds largest pink sword fight and it would not affect my wife's and my marriage one iota.   The straw man is morons trying to say someone outside a marriage degrades that marriage.  It doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does cheapen and degrade marriage FROM THE GET-GO, WHERE CHILDREN ARE INVOLVED or anticipated to be involved (re: all marriages).  He was correct in saying that.
> 
> YOUR strawman was to say "divorce of normal married people cheapens marriage where children are involved".  It does not.  Divorce is RELUCTANTLY granted and even then the children still receive the vital mother & father benefits of it long after it is dissolved.  Proving my assertion that the marriage contract is primary for children's benefits and secondarily for the benefits of adults.  The primary beneficiaries still retain mother & father upon divorce.
> 
> Gay marriage NEVER provides both a mother and father.  Ergo, it cheapens and sullies the institution beyond repair where the primary beneficaries are concerned..
Click to expand...


Divorces are not granted _reluctantly_. So long as you have the money you can march right down to the courthouse and get a divorce. Sorry, divorce cheapens marriages, but you're willing to overlook that fact b/c you're more interested in whining about gays. 

Again, how does stopping gays from getting married suddenly make their children have a mother and father? Your solution doesn't address your problem. Every time I ask you either flee or deflect to polygamy and/or incest. Prohibiting gays from marrying doesn't stop them from raising their children.


----------



## Divine Wind

Silhouette said:


> Gay marriage NEVER provides both a mother and father.  Ergo, it cheapens and sullies the institution beyond repair where the primary beneficaries are concerned..


So you're okay with gay marriage as long as they don't have kids?  What if a marriage with children breaks up because one of the spouses/parents is gay then marries gay?  Would you make sure the child goes with the non-gay single parent over the married gay parents regardless of gender?


----------



## Silhouette

Divine.Wind said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage NEVER provides both a mother and father.  Ergo, it cheapens and sullies the institution beyond repair where the primary beneficaries are concerned..
> 
> 
> 
> *So you're okay with gay marriage as long as* they don't have kids?  What if a marriage with children breaks up because one of the spouses/parents is gay then marries gay?  Would you make sure the child goes with the non-gay single parent over the married gay parents regardless of gender?
Click to expand...

Nope,  I'm not.  How did you ever go from my considering so-called "gay marriage" which cheapens and destroys a contract primarily for children whose main benefit is mother AND father to "So you're okay with gay marriage..."?

No.  It destroys the standard set for ALL children.  Not just a select few here or there.  And since we set law based on the whole and not rare exceptional parts away from the whole, I am NOT in favor of gay marriage AT ALL.  And that is because it NEVER provides both mother and father in any instance, no children or children.

Marriage is about & for the children statistically expected to arrive.  That's the reason even in divorce, their benefits are preserved.  

If you are "gay" and have roped children into your lifestyle; you don't legally get the benefits of marriage in most states (Obergefell will be overturned in the next 4 years).  Just as if you are polygamists or incest, those children you've roped into your lifestyle will never get the benefits of marriage.  Marriage isn't a welfare program of benefits for all.  It is a gold standard set to entice children away from those inferior situations to them.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Divine.Wind said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a marriage between two people of the same sex.  *Treating a sick homosexual mockery of marriage as having any similarity to genuine marriage only cheapens and degrades the concept of marriage*….
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you ban divorce or multiple-marriages because they, too, cheapen and degrade marriage?
> 
> Newt Gingrich  3 marriages.
> 
> Rush Limbaugh 4 marriages.
> 
> Rudy Giuliani 3 marriages.
> 
> Donald Trump  3 marriages
Click to expand...


  The high divorce rate is at least as much a symptom as it is a cause.  I'm afraid it is not practical to ban divorce, but I will say that every divorce is a tragic occurrence, and the degree to which it has become common and widely-regarded as acceptable reflects very badly on our society.


----------



## Divine Wind

Silhouette said:


> Nope,  I'm not.  How did you ever go from my considering so-called "gay marriage" *which cheapens and destroys a contract primarily for children*....


Are you saying people who marry without planning to have children shouldn't marry?  WTF convoluted shit is this?  I can understand if you're homophobic and don't want gays married in your church, but to dictate to straights about marriage or that it is "a contract primarily for children" is bullshit.  Frankly I don't stick my nose into other peoples lives like asshole authoritarians love to do.  All I ask is for them to get the fuck off my property.  Why you feel compelled to dictate to others how to live, what to think and what to believe is your problem.


----------



## Divine Wind

Bob Blaylock said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a marriage between two people of the same sex.  *Treating a sick homosexual mockery of marriage as having any similarity to genuine marriage only cheapens and degrades the concept of marriage*….
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you ban divorce or multiple-marriages because they, too, cheapen and degrade marriage?
> 
> Newt Gingrich  3 marriages.
> 
> Rush Limbaugh 4 marriages.
> 
> Rudy Giuliani 3 marriages.
> 
> Donald Trump  3 marriages
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The high divorce rate is at least as much a symptom as it is a cause.  I'm afraid it is not practical to ban divorce, but I will say that every divorce is a tragic occurrence, and the degree to which it has become common and widely-regarded as acceptable reflects very badly on our society.
Click to expand...

Solution to the divorce problem?  Don't get married.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Divine.Wind said:


> Solution to the divorce problem?  Don't get married.



  And along with that, there is this…






  A tragically-increasing rate of children being born and raised without a proper family, without a father and a mother.  And those of you on the left *wrong*—when you're not denying this problem or dismissing the tragic significance, thereof—only ever offer to address it with even greater does of the same sort of poisonous policies that caused it in the first place.  *Li*b*e*ralism truly is a mental and moral disease.


----------



## Syriusly

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denying marriage to their parents does not help those children- it only hurts those children- by denying them the legal protections that the children of married couples get.
> 
> So why do you want their children to be hurt?
> 
> Just so you can feel better about your own marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a marriage between two people of the same sex. .
Click to expand...


Well you are wrong. 

In all 50 states.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....Now I happen agree that all prospective adoptive parents should be screened- but there is a rather glaring hypocrisy(and one I have no answer for)* that we have no such screening for prospective biological parents.*
> 
> 
> 
> The world has dallied with eugenics before.  Doing it again might be a mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Syriusly has problems pounding the square peg of her deviant sex utopia into the round hole of reality.
Click to expand...

Silhouette has problems because her live revolves around spreading hate at gays- and their kids.

Why does Silhouette want to injure children?


----------



## Divine Wind

Bob Blaylock said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solution to the divorce problem?  Don't get married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And along with that, there is this…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A tragically-increasing rate of children being born and raised without a proper family, without a father and a mother.  And those of you on the left *wrong*—when you're not denying this problem or dismissing the tragic significance, thereof—only ever offer to address it with even greater does of the same sort of poisonous policies that caused it in the first place.  *Li*b*e*ralism truly is a mental and moral disease.
Click to expand...

What is your solution?  Forced sterilization?  ZPG laws?  Certainly not safe and cheap abortion, amirite?  LOL

What does this have to do with the gays?


----------



## Silhouette

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denying marriage to their parents does not help those children- it only hurts those children- by denying them the legal protections that the children of married couples get.
> 
> So why do you want their children to be hurt?
> 
> Just so you can feel better about your own marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a marriage between two people of the same sex. .
Click to expand...




Syriusly said:


> Well you are wrong.
> 
> In all 50 states.



Quasi....for now.  Obergefell won't last four years.  It has more legal holes than swiss cheese screen with measles.  Not the least of which being a contract revision at its core benefits, eliminating the main beneficiaries from having representation at the Hearing.

Don't just take my word for it.  85% of people agree with me.  See the poll at the top of the page.  By 2020, the definition and parameters of marriage will be firmly ensconced at the state level where in Windsor 2013, the Court said 56 times that is precisely where it belongs.  Just 5 people don't get to expand the idea of marriage (but still exclude some same or similar) without permission from the 300 million self-governed..  Like I said, Obergefell is like the biggest brick of legal swiss cheese known to mankind right now.  A Jr. High poli-sci graduate could bring a beefsteak slab case challenging it and win.  Skilled trial lawyers will mince it finely.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denying marriage to their parents does not help those children- it only hurts those children- by denying them the legal protections that the children of married couples get.
> 
> So why do you want their children to be hurt?
> 
> Just so you can feel better about your own marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a marriage between two people of the same sex. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you are wrong.
> 
> In all 50 states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quasi....for now.  Obergefell won't last four years. .
Click to expand...


Nothing 'quasi' about it. No more 'quasi' than Loving v. Virginia. 

Legal reality in all 50 states- which is why you are so determined to change that, so that you can bring harm to their children.


----------



## Silhouette

Loving was about race.  Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit) found that homosexuality is not equivalent to race.  Sorry.


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Loving was about race.  Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit) found that homosexuality is not equivalent to race.  Sorry.



Stop lying. The Hively decision stated that homosexuality wasn't equivalent to the word _sex _concerning workplace discrimination in The Civil Rights Act.


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loving was about race.  Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit) found that homosexuality is not equivalent to race.  Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying. The Hively decision stated that homosexuality wasn't equivalent to the word _sex _concerning workplace discrimination in The Civil Rights Act.
Click to expand...

Yes.  Hively found that "sex" was and is a noun in the Civil Rights Act.  That has implications when you understand that therefore, Hively also found that homosexual is a verb.  It seems race and behaviors are not legally birds of the same nest.  

Prepare yourselves accordingly because this will be examined more closely in the near future court challenges..


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loving was about race.  Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit) found that homosexuality is not equivalent to race.  Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying. The Hively decision stated that homosexuality wasn't equivalent to the word _sex _concerning workplace discrimination in The Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  Hively found that "sex" was and is a noun in the Civil Rights Act.  That has implications when you understand that therefore, Hively also found that homosexual is a verb.  It seems race and behaviors are not legally birds of the same nest.
> 
> Prepare yourselves accordingly because this will be examined more closely in the near future court challenges..
Click to expand...


Now you're just making up bullshit and assigning it to a court decision you've clearly never read in its entirety. Like always.

You'll have excuse me if I take your prediction with a very small grain of salt. Your prognosticating skills are legendary around here for being hysterically wrong.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Loving was about race..



Loving was about marriage- but you knew that. 


Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."


----------



## Syriusly

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loving was about race.  Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit) found that homosexuality is not equivalent to race.  Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying. The Hively decision stated that homosexuality wasn't equivalent to the word _sex _concerning workplace discrimination in The Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  Hively found that "sex" was and is a noun in the Civil Rights Act.  That has implications when you understand that therefore, Hively also found that homosexual is a verb.  It seems race and behaviors are not legally birds of the same nest.
> 
> Prepare yourselves accordingly because this will be examined more closely in the near future court challenges..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just making up bullshit .
Click to expand...


You do realize that you could just copy that- and use it to respond accurately to every single one of Silhouette's posts.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> Loving v Virginia
> 
> "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."



Yes.  Brothers and sisters and polygamists cannot marry.  What's your point?

You see what I'm demonstrating?  You're OK with descriptions of marriage in which no person was being discriminated against; set by the states.  If men and women could marry, all men and women could marry.  You're OK that brothers and sisters cannot marry.  You're OK that polygamists cannot marry.

What you wanted was a singled out special redaction of marriage just for your cult, forced on the 50 states; where children become permanently divorced in the new contract, from the chance of ever having either a mother or father in their lives.  And you "accomplished" that with your 5 pocket numbskull Justices who you snow-jobbed into believing "race=deviant sex behaviors" using Loving.  Hively v Ivy Tech (2016) just put a stop to that false premise.  And THAT's what's going to be built on for future cases unless the USSC stops it.

Better hope those Justices Trump picks are liberal hacks like the two Obama picked...


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loving v Virginia
> 
> "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Brothers and sisters and polygamists cannot marry.  What's your point?
> 
> You see what I'm demonstrating?  You're OK with descriptions of marriage in which no person was being discriminated against; set by the states.  If men and women could marry, all men and women could marry.  You're OK that brothers and sisters cannot marry.  You're OK that polygamists cannot marry.
> 
> What you wanted was a singled out special redaction of marriage just for your cult, forced on the 50 states; where children become permanently divorced in the new contract, from the chance of ever having either a mother or father in their lives.  And you "accomplished" that with your 5 pocket numbskull Justices who you snow-jobbed into believing "race=deviant sex behaviors" using Loving.  Hively v Ivy Tech (2016) just put a stop to that false premise.  And THAT's what's going to be built on for future cases unless the USSC stops it.
> 
> Better hope those Justices Trump picks are liberal hacks like the two Obama picked...
Click to expand...


So you are saying that allowing mixed race couples marry- Loving v. Virginia- is the same as polygamous marriage?

Wow.


----------



## OffensivelyOpenMinded

Uncensored2008 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I am just very happy that children can have married parents- even if their parents are gay.
> 
> Silhouette is pissed off that those children can have married parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What good does marriage do?  The POINT of marriage is to ensure children are raised by a FATHER and a MOTHER.
> 
> Homosexual "marriage" not only fails to accomplish this, but in fact exists purely to discredit real marriage.
Click to expand...

Dude....you are a BEAST. They're not ready for you.


----------



## Silhouette

Uncensored2008 said:


> What good does marriage do?  The POINT of marriage is to ensure children are raised by a FATHER and a MOTHER.
> 
> Homosexual "marriage" not only fails to accomplish this, but in fact exists purely to discredit real marriage.


Yes.  It seeks to mock the word & legally confine, via contract, children involved away from a vital mother or father for life.


----------



## mdk

Whiny pussies: "Gay marriage discredits and mocks my marriage."


----------



## Silhouette

mdk said:


> Whiny pussies: "Gay marriage discredits and mocks my marriage."


No it mocks marriage, period.  The word.  The institution created to give mothers and fathers to children in a stable way.

It's like renaming zebras "skyscrapers".  Or like McDonalds saying "hamburgers will no longer be offered for sale at McDonalds' worldwide".


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whiny pussies: "Gay marriage discredits and mocks my marriage."
> 
> 
> 
> No it mocks marriage, period.  The word.  The institution created to give mothers and fathers to children in a stable way.
> 
> It's like renaming zebras "skyscrapers".  Or like McDonalds saying "hamburgers will no longer be offered for sale at McDonalds' worldwide".
Click to expand...


If your marriage is mocked by another couple getting married then your marriage is the one you need to be concerned with, not mine.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whiny pussies: "Gay marriage discredits and mocks my marriage."
> 
> 
> 
> No it mocks marriage, period.  The word.  The institution created to give mothers and fathers to children in a stable way.
> 
> It's like renaming zebras "skyscrapers".  Or like McDonalds saying "hamburgers will no longer be offered for sale at McDonalds' worldwide".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your marriage is mocked by another couple getting married then your marriage is the one you need to be concerned with, not mine.
Click to expand...



 Based upon what I have read of his, I would think he must be well acquainted with being mocked.


----------



## Silhouette

Well did you read the poll too?  It says 85% of people, if they really thought about marriage well, would realize gay marriage goes against their core beliefs of what children should derive from it.


----------



## Silhouette

The question is still relevant.  Are fatherless/motherless marriages OK to force on the states to incentivize when states are in the business of incentivizing the best possible home environment in which to raise children (marriage)?


----------



## Slyhunter

Silhouette said:


> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.


My father was a pedophile he molested both of his daughters when they were 14. He pushed me into having sex with my girlfriends.


----------



## skye

Slyhunter said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.
> 
> 
> 
> My father was a pedophile he molested both of his daughters when they were 14. He pushed me into having sex with my girlfriends.
Click to expand...




you joking????


----------



## Gracie

Why make it a political question??? 

Therefore, I did not vote.


----------



## mdk

Gracie said:


> Why make it a political question???
> 
> Therefore, I did not vote.



Why? Because she wants to bash gay marriage...again. Sil is a one-trick pony.


----------



## Slyhunter

skye said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.
> 
> 
> 
> My father was a pedophile he molested both of his daughters when they were 14. He pushed me into having sex with my girlfriends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you joking????
Click to expand...

no.


----------



## Bonzi

I had to go with other.

I'm somewhere between a Republican and Moderate Independent
As for my parents, I had them both until I was 6.  I did have a mom and step dad.
I longed for a father, but not the one(s) I had.


----------



## Silhouette

Bonzi said:


> I had to go with other.
> 
> I'm somewhere between a Republican and Moderate Independent
> As for my parents, I had them both until I was 6.  I did have a mom and step dad.
> I longed for a father, but not the one(s) I had.


So you think it's important for a child to have both a mom & dad?


----------



## Bonzi

Silhouette said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had to go with other.
> 
> I'm somewhere between a Republican and Moderate Independent
> As for my parents, I had them both until I was 6.  I did have a mom and step dad.
> I longed for a father, but not the one(s) I had.
> 
> 
> 
> So you think it's important for a child to have both a mom & dad?
Click to expand...

If they are decent parents, otherwise, better to have a missing mom or dad than a piece of shit one


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> So you think it's important for a child to have both a mom & dad?





Bonzi said:


> If they are decent parents, otherwise, better to have a missing mom or dad than a piece of shit one


OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad.  And we'd hope they were decent people, yes?  Or you don't think it's important?  I'm just trying to nail that part down.


----------



## Bonzi

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think it's important for a child to have both a mom & dad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they are decent parents, otherwise, better to have a missing mom or dad than a piece of shit one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad.  And we'd hope they were decent people, yes?  Or you don't think it's important?  I'm just trying to nail that part down.
Click to expand...

Very important, yes


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad.  And we'd hope they were decent people, yes?  Or you don't think it's important?  I'm just trying to nail that part down.





Bonzi said:


> Very important, yes


So....

Do you support or oppose gay marriage?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> The question is still relevant.  Are fatherless/motherless marriages OK to force on the states to incentivize when states are in the business of incentivizing the best possible home environment in which to raise children (marriage)?



Yes- a fatherless/motherless marriage is okay- since states happily endorse the marriages of 80 year old couples. 

States have many responsibilities- among them the protection of children. 

If States sole concern with the welfare of children was to ensure that children had a mother and father who were married- then the State would not allow for divorce. 

Instead States have no-fault divorce- where the welfare of children does not determine whether or not mom and dad can get divorced. 

Queen of the false premises continues on her quest to injure homosexuals and children.


----------



## Syriusly

Slyhunter said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.
> 
> 
> 
> My father was a pedophile he molested both of his daughters when they were 14. He pushed me into having sex with my girlfriends.
Click to expand...


But according to Silhouette- that is better for the kids than you having two mom's.

And by the way- I made light of the very real tragedy of your families experiences. I appreciate you contributing your point of view to the conversation.


----------



## Bonzi

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad.  And we'd hope they were decent people, yes?  Or you don't think it's important?  I'm just trying to nail that part down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very important, yes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So....
> 
> Do you support or oppose gay marriage?
Click to expand...

I think it's overall detrimental to society and stability. However, I am a supporter of a majority deciding what they want. Personally, I oppose it


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad.  And we'd hope they were decent people, yes?  Or you don't think it's important?  I'm just trying to nail that part down.





Bonzi said:


> Very important, yes





Silhouette said:


> So....
> 
> Do you support or oppose gay marriage?





Bonzi said:


> I think it's overall detrimental to society and stability. However, I am a supporter of a majority deciding what they want. Personally, I oppose it


So you're OK with California, for example, saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman by their majority vote (twice, and still standing as law in their Constitution to this day)?


----------



## AquaAthena

I'm an indepentent who was fortunate to have had a mother and a father as head of household. I learned separate and valuable lessons from each as well as those values they held in common. It was a perfect, imperfect family within which I was given the tools to use in accepting or avoiding those choices and repercusions I would come to make as I struck out on my own. I payed attention to some of them.


----------



## Bonzi

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad.  And we'd hope they were decent people, yes?  Or you don't think it's important?  I'm just trying to nail that part down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very important, yes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....
> 
> Do you support or oppose gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's overall detrimental to society and stability. However, I am a supporter of a majority deciding what they want. Personally, I oppose it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're OK with California, for example, saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman by their majority vote (twice, and still standing as law in their Constitution to this day)?
Click to expand...

Sure, but doesn't Federal Law override that?


----------



## Spare_change

Bonzi said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad.  And we'd hope they were decent people, yes?  Or you don't think it's important?  I'm just trying to nail that part down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very important, yes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So....
> 
> Do you support or oppose gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it's overall detrimental to society and stability. However, I am a supporter of a majority deciding what they want. Personally, I oppose it
Click to expand...

Interesting - I agree with your position, but .....

It's okay to do harm if the "majority" wants it? Does that really make it right? Or, does that simply make it uncomfortable to be steadfast in your beliefs? Don't you owe it to society to try to prevent those doing harm, even if they are the majority?


----------



## BULLDOG

Slyhunter said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life.  And how important people feel about that for children.
> 
> 
> 
> My father was a pedophile he molested both of his daughters when they were 14. He pushed me into having sex with my girlfriends.
Click to expand...


When I was 14. Nobody had to push me to want sex with my girlfriend. Hormones took care of that task.


----------



## Bonzi

Spare_change said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad.  And we'd hope they were decent people, yes?  Or you don't think it's important?  I'm just trying to nail that part down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very important, yes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So....
> 
> Do you support or oppose gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it's overall detrimental to society and stability. However, I am a supporter of a majority deciding what they want. Personally, I oppose it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting - I agree with your position, but .....
> 
> It's okay to do harm if the "majority" wants it? Does that really make it right? Or, does that simply make it uncomfortable to be steadfast in your beliefs? Don't you owe it to society to try to prevent those doing harm, even if they are the majority?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what a democracy is about.


----------



## Silhouette

Silhouette said:


> OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad.  And we'd hope they were decent people, yes?  Or you don't think it's important?  I'm just trying to nail that part down.





Bonzi said:


> Very important, yes





Silhouette said:


> So....
> 
> Do you support or oppose gay marriage?





Bonzi said:


> I think it's overall detrimental to society and stability. However, I am a supporter of a majority deciding what they want. Personally, I oppose it





Spare_change said:


> Interesting - I agree with your position, but .....
> 
> It's okay to do harm if the "majority" wants it? Does that really make it right? Or, does that simply make it uncomfortable to be steadfast in your beliefs? Don't you owe it to society to try to prevent those doing harm, *even if they are the majority?*



The thing is that most of the states' majorities REJECTED gay marriage.  But your points are otherwise well taken.  Yes, we all owe it to children to defend their contractual right since time immemorial to 2015 of both a mother and father from marriage.


----------



## Silhouette

Bonzi said:


> Yes, that is what a democracy is about.


But Bonzai, using the democratic process gives us 35 some states that REJECTED gay marriage.  5 unelected lawyers in DC's USSC are not how the majority rules itself.  There are no, ZERO, protections for people doing deviant sex behaviors in the US Constitution. So the Supreme Court had no basis in Law for the decision it made forcing 35 some states to allow "gay marriage", and at the same moment to force those states to remove children's contractual enjoyment of marriage to both a mother and father.


----------



## Bonzi

Silhouette said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is what a democracy is about.
> 
> 
> 
> But Bonzai, using the democratic process gives us 35 some states that REJECTED gay marriage.  5 unelected lawyers in DC's USSC are not how the majority rules itself.  There are no, ZERO, protections for people doing deviant sex behaviors in the US Constitution. So the Supreme Court had no basis in Law for the decision it made forcing 35 some states to allow "gay marriage", and at the same moment to force those states to remove children's contractual enjoyment of marriage to both a mother and father.
Click to expand...

I agree, but the US is not being governed as a TRUE democracy


----------



## Silhouette

Bonzi said:


> I agree, but the US is not being governed as a TRUE democracy



So then to recap, you disagree with gay marriage for at least two reasons: 1. Because it deprives children of both vital mother and father for life via contract and 2. Because it was illegally forced upon the majority who (still) rejects it.   

?


----------



## Spare_change

Bonzi said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad.  And we'd hope they were decent people, yes?  Or you don't think it's important?  I'm just trying to nail that part down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very important, yes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So....
> 
> Do you support or oppose gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it's overall detrimental to society and stability. However, I am a supporter of a majority deciding what they want. Personally, I oppose it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting - I agree with your position, but .....
> 
> It's okay to do harm if the "majority" wants it? Does that really make it right? Or, does that simply make it uncomfortable to be steadfast in your beliefs? Don't you owe it to society to try to prevent those doing harm, even if they are the majority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that is what a democracy is about.
Click to expand...

Morality doesn't trump (pardon the expression) mass hysteria)?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad.  And we'd hope they were decent people, yes?  Or you don't think it's important?  I'm just trying to nail that part down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very important, yes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....
> 
> Do you support or oppose gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's overall detrimental to society and stability. However, I am a supporter of a majority deciding what they want. Personally, I oppose it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're OK with California, for example, saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman by their majority vote (twice, and still standing as law in their Constitution to this day)?
Click to expand...


I am sure she is just as okay with that as she is with the state of Virginia voting that marriage is only between two people of the same race. 

Hopefully she is also okay with the Supreme Court overturning unconstitutional laws.


----------



## Syriusly

Bonzi said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad.  And we'd hope they were decent people, yes?  Or you don't think it's important?  I'm just trying to nail that part down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very important, yes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....
> 
> Do you support or oppose gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's overall detrimental to society and stability. However, I am a supporter of a majority deciding what they want. Personally, I oppose it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're OK with California, for example, saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman by their majority vote (twice, and still standing as law in their Constitution to this day)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but doesn't Federal Law override that?
Click to expand...

Actually the Constitution overrides that- not Federal law


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad.  And we'd hope they were decent people, yes?  Or you don't think it's important?  I'm just trying to nail that part down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very important, yes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....
> 
> Do you support or oppose gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's overall detrimental to society and stability. However, I am a supporter of a majority deciding what they want. Personally, I oppose it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting - I agree with your position, but .....
> 
> It's okay to do harm if the "majority" wants it? Does that really make it right? Or, does that simply make it uncomfortable to be steadfast in your beliefs? Don't you owe it to society to try to prevent those doing harm, *even if they are the majority?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we all owe it to children to defend their contractual right since time immemorial to 2015 of both a mother and father from marriage.
Click to expand...


LOL- that 'right' which if it existed- would a) require their parents to marry- and b) prevent their parents from divorcing.

Watch how Silhouette will twist and torture logic to explain how children have the right to parents in marriage- except if the parents aren't married or want to get divorced. 

Pretty much anything but be two gays who don't have or want to have any kids.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but the US is not being governed as a TRUE democracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then to recap, you disagree with gay marriage for at least two reasons: 1. Because it deprives children of both vital mother and father for life via contract and 2. Because it was illegally forced upon the majority who (still) rejects it.
> 
> ?
Click to expand...

So then to recap:
a) you lied about what Bonzi said
b) you lied about what Bonzi said
c) you lied about what Bonzi said


----------



## Spare_change

Syriusly said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad.  And we'd hope they were decent people, yes?  Or you don't think it's important?  I'm just trying to nail that part down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very important, yes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....
> 
> Do you support or oppose gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's overall detrimental to society and stability. However, I am a supporter of a majority deciding what they want. Personally, I oppose it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're OK with California, for example, saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman by their majority vote (twice, and still standing as law in their Constitution to this day)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but doesn't Federal Law override that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the Constitution overrides that- not Federal law
Click to expand...

Actually, the Constitution is not a law ... and carries no legal position.

The laws that are passed must conform, however, to the Constitution. There is a marked difference between the two.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is what a democracy is about.
> 
> 
> 
> But Bonzai, using the democratic process gives us 35 some states that REJECTED gay marriage.  5 unelected lawyers in DC's USSC are not how the majority rules itself.  There are no, ZERO, protections for people doing deviant sex behaviors in the US Constitution. So the Supreme Court had no basis in Law for the decision it made forcing 35 some states to allow "gay marriage", and at the same moment to force those states to remove children's contractual enjoyment of marriage to both a mother and father.
Click to expand...


LOL since when has Constitutional protections been subject to the 'democratic process'?


----------



## Syriusly

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad.  And we'd hope they were decent people, yes?  Or you don't think it's important?  I'm just trying to nail that part down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very important, yes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....
> 
> Do you support or oppose gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's overall detrimental to society and stability. However, I am a supporter of a majority deciding what they want. Personally, I oppose it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're OK with California, for example, saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman by their majority vote (twice, and still standing as law in their Constitution to this day)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but doesn't Federal Law override that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the Constitution overrides that- not Federal law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the Constitution is not a law ... and carries no legal position.
> 
> The laws that are passed must conform, however, to the Constitution. There is a marked difference between the two.
Click to expand...


a) I didn't say that the Constitution is a law- though frankly that is an irrelevant distinction. 

_b) _According to the Constitution- the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land:
_This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;.
_
c) And I agree that both Federal and State laws must conform with the Constitution


----------



## Spare_change

Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad.  And we'd hope they were decent people, yes?  Or you don't think it's important?  I'm just trying to nail that part down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very important, yes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....
> 
> Do you support or oppose gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's overall detrimental to society and stability. However, I am a supporter of a majority deciding what they want. Personally, I oppose it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're OK with California, for example, saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman by their majority vote (twice, and still standing as law in their Constitution to this day)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but doesn't Federal Law override that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the Constitution overrides that- not Federal law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the Constitution is not a law ... and carries no legal position.
> 
> The laws that are passed must conform, however, to the Constitution. There is a marked difference between the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a) I didn't say that the Constitution is a law- though frankly that is an irrelevant distinction.
> 
> _b) _According to the Constitution- the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land:
> _This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;.
> _
> c) And I agree that both Federal and State laws must conform with the Constitution
Click to expand...

Wrong .... but thanks for proving it.

You specifically said "..the Constitution overrides that - not Federal law" That is not true. 

Laws are enforced; the Constitution is not. 

Laws are the tool against which your behavior is measured. The Constitution is the tool against which laws are measured.

Laws place restrictions on you. The Constitution places restrictions on lawmakers.

Laws are subject to change by the legislative branch. The Constitution is not. 

The list goes on and on ... you said a dumb thing. 

Just let it go.


----------



## tycho1572

I grew up in a family (mom and dad) that had a set time for dinner. It’s when us kids discussed things going on in our lives.

I’ll never forget my parents reaction when my older sister said she tried marijuana. They were shocked again when my brother and I said we also tried it. lol

Good/fun memories.


----------



## Silhouette

So, mom and dad were important figures for you too, as well as the other 85% of the responders to the poll.


----------



## Syriusly

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're OK with California, for example, saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman by their majority vote (twice, and still standing as law in their Constitution to this day)?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but doesn't Federal Law override that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the Constitution overrides that- not Federal law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the Constitution is not a law ... and carries no legal position.
> 
> The laws that are passed must conform, however, to the Constitution. There is a marked difference between the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a) I didn't say that the Constitution is a law- though frankly that is an irrelevant distinction.
> 
> _b) _According to the Constitution- the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land:
> _This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;.
> _
> c) And I agree that both Federal and State laws must conform with the Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong .... but thanks for proving it.
> 
> You specifically said "..the Constitution overrides that - not Federal law" That is not true.
> 
> Laws are enforced; the Constitution is not.
> 
> Laws are the tool against which your behavior is measured. The Constitution is the tool against which laws are measured.
> 
> Laws place restrictions on you. The Constitution places restrictions on lawmakers.
> 
> Laws are subject to change by the legislative branch. The Constitution is not.
> 
> The list goes on and on ... you said a dumb thing.
> 
> Just let it go.
Click to expand...


So the Constitution is wrong- when the Constitution said that the Constitution.......shall be the supreme law of the land?

Well you got me- obviously we should accept what you say- rather than the actual words of the Constitution.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> So, mom and dad were important figures for you too, as well as the other 85% of the responders to the poll.



My mom was important to me. My dad was important to me. My sister was important to me. My grandmother was important to me.

That doesn't mean I was entitled to have all of them in my life- I was just fortunate.  Just like a girl with two mom's is fortunate to have them in her life- and the boy with the single mom is fortunate to have her in his life.

Remember again- marriage does not mean children. Children do not mean marriage. Parents are important to their children. If I had someway to snap my fingers and ensure that every child in the United States had two loving caring married parents- i would do so in an instant. 

But our system doesn't require parents to be married. Or married couples to have children. Or married couples with children to stay together. Or even that both parents actually raise the children. 

If Betty is being raised by her mom- and her dad lives 3,000 miles away- she is being raised by a single parent.- and hopefully a good single parent.
If Betty is being raised by her mom, and her mom's wife- and her dad lives 3,000 miles away- she is being raised by two parents- and hopefully they are both good parents.
Now- if Betty's two mom's get married- then she would have two married mom's- and her dad would be 3,000 miles away- and their children would all be better off than if Betty was single- or the two mom's were not married.

And that really is the crux of it. You know that denying marriage to the gay parents of children just harms their children- and you keep pursuing it- because obviously you want to harm their children.


----------



## Toro

Yes, it's very important. 

I travel 12-14 hours one way 4-5 times a year to see my parents.  It's important.  I am with them now.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Toro said:


> Yes, it's very important.
> 
> I travel 12-14 hours one way 4-5 times a year to see my parents.  It's important.  I am with them now.


----------



## Silhouette

Syriusly said:


> My mom was important to me. My dad was important to me. My sister was important to me. My grandmother was important to me.
> 
> That doesn't mean I was entitled to have all of them in my life- I was just fortunate.  *Just like a girl with two mom's is fortunate to have them* in her life- and the boy with the single mom is fortunate to have her in his life.
> 
> Remember again- marriage does not mean children. Children do not mean marriage. Parents are important to their children. *If I had someway to snap my fingers and ensure that every child in the United States had two loving caring married parents- i would do so in an instant*.
> 
> .



I notice you didn't say "Just like a BOY with two moms is fortunate to have them in HIS life".  

You do have a way to snap your fingers and have both the essential mother and father in a child's life.  It's called MARRIAGE.  THAT'S WHY STATES INCENTIVIZED THEM TO ENTICE THAT EXACT SCENARIO INTO BEING.  Now instead your cult would deprive a boy of a father or a girl of a mother FOR LIFE by that very institution that used to entice providing those essential beings to the kids.

And, marriage IS about children.  It's why it was invented back before we started keeping track of time.  To make sure every boy had a father and every girl a mother.  Because you see, children come in both distinct genders and so should their married parents.


----------



## Silhouette

Toro said:


> Yes, it's very important.
> 
> I travel 12-14 hours one way 4-5 times a year to see my parents.  It's important.  I am with them now.


So just curious, you are a male happy to have both mom and dad or a female happy to have both mom and dad?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> My mom was important to me. My dad was important to me. My sister was important to me. My grandmother was important to me.
> 
> That doesn't mean I was entitled to have all of them in my life- I was just fortunate.  *Just like a girl with two mom's is fortunate to have them* in her life- and the boy with the single mom is fortunate to have her in his life.
> 
> Remember again- marriage does not mean children. Children do not mean marriage. Parents are important to their children. *If I had someway to snap my fingers and ensure that every child in the United States had two loving caring married parents- i would do so in an instant*.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you didn't say "Just like a BOY with two moms is fortunate to have them in HIS life".
> 
> You do have a way to snap your fingers and have both the essential mother and father in a child's life.  It's called MARRIAGE. .
Click to expand...


No- marriage doesn't guarantee a thing. And you know that- marriages can end in divorce and suddenly the kids are being raised by a mother living in one place and a dad living in another- the marriage didn't guarantee that the kids would have married parents. 

Nor does marriage guarantee that a dad will be their to raise his son and daughter or that a mom will be. 

If being married guaranteed two loving caring married parents- then there would be no child abuse by legally married fathers- and step fathers. There would be no children neglected by their drug addled legally married parents. 

It is obvious you don't care about parenting at all- you don't care whether children have good parents or any parents- you care about denying marriage to gays- and harming any children that they may be raising. 

You want to deny them marriage- just as you want to deny them all their civil rights.


----------



## Moonglow

I had one Mom and 5 step dads....


----------



## Syriusly

Moonglow said:


> I had one Mom and 5 step dads....



And that is marriage the way God intended.


----------



## Moonglow

Syriusly said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had one Mom and 5 step dads....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is marriage the way God intended.
Click to expand...

Not really since Adam had two wives...We are getting ripped off in today's society...


----------



## Slyhunter

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, mom and dad were important figures for you too, as well as the other 85% of the responders to the poll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My mom was important to me. My dad was important to me. My sister was important to me. My grandmother was important to me.
> 
> That doesn't mean I was entitled to have all of them in my life- I was just fortunate.  Just like a girl with two mom's is fortunate to have them in her life- and the boy with the single mom is fortunate to have her in his life.
> 
> Remember again- marriage does not mean children. Children do not mean marriage. Parents are important to their children. If I had someway to snap my fingers and ensure that every child in the United States had two loving caring married parents- i would do so in an instant.
> 
> But our system doesn't require parents to be married. Or married couples to have children. Or married couples with children to stay together. Or even that both parents actually raise the children.
> 
> If Betty is being raised by her mom- and her dad lives 3,000 miles away- she is being raised by a single parent.- and hopefully a good single parent.
> If Betty is being raised by her mom, and her mom's wife- and her dad lives 3,000 miles away- she is being raised by two parents- and hopefully they are both good parents.
> Now- if Betty's two mom's get married- then she would have two married mom's- and her dad would be 3,000 miles away- and their children would all be better off than if Betty was single- or the two mom's were not married.
> 
> And that really is the crux of it. You know that denying marriage to the gay parents of children just harms their children- and you keep pursuing it- because obviously you want to harm their children.
Click to expand...

I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
People who want to deny marriage to gay parents  don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is fucking steak.


----------



## Silhouette

Slyhunter said:


> I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
> People who want to deny marriage to gay parents  don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is fucking steak.



How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children?  All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father.  Pretty messed up eh?  The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them. 

Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.


----------



## Moonglow

Silhouette said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
> People who want to deny marriage to gay parents  don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is fucking steak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children?  All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father.  Pretty messed up eh?  The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.
> 
> Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.
Click to expand...

That is only for legal contracts a person entered into as a minor. Children do not enter into a marriage contract of their parents, only themselves...


----------



## mdk

Do you remember all the oral arguments and Amicus briefs opposing gay marriage citing the Infancy Doctrine as their reason? Yeah, me neither.


----------



## mdk

Moonglow said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
> People who want to deny marriage to gay parents  don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is fucking steak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children?  All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father.  Pretty messed up eh?  The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.
> 
> Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is only for legal contracts a person entered into as a minor. Children do not enter into a marriage contract of their parents, only themselves...
Click to expand...


In Sil's imaginary legal world, children that don't exist yet are an implicit party to a marriage contract. Mind you, not a single court in this nation recognizes that legal standard, but none of that matters when you have a mentally ill obsession.


----------



## Moonglow

mdk said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
> People who want to deny marriage to gay parents  don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is fucking steak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children?  All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father.  Pretty messed up eh?  The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.
> 
> Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is only for legal contracts a person entered into as a minor. Children do not enter into a marriage contract of their parents, only themselves...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Sil's imaginary legal world, children that don't exist yet are an implicit party to a marriage contract. Mind you, not a single court in this nation recognizes that legal standard, but none of that matters when you have a mentally ill obsession.
Click to expand...

I guess that emancipation to her is only about the black slaves also..


----------



## Silhouette

Slyhunter said:


> I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
> People who want to deny marriage to gay parents  don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is fucking steak.





Silhouette said:


> How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children?  All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father.  Pretty messed up eh?  The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.
> 
> Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.





Moonglow said:


> That is only for legal contracts a person entered into as a minor. Children do not enter into a marriage contract of their parents, only themselves...



We'll see...    Time immemorial to present is a loooooooonnng precedent to beat my friend for the rights of children to both mother and father from marriage...the reason it was created was for them, not the adults.


----------



## Moonglow

Silhouette said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
> People who want to deny marriage to gay parents  don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is fucking steak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children?  All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father.  Pretty messed up eh?  The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.
> 
> Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is only for legal contracts a person entered into as a minor. Children do not enter into a marriage contract of their parents, only themselves...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll see...    Time immemorial to present is a loooooooonnng precedent to beat my friend for the rights of children to both mother and father from marriage...the reason it was created was for them, not the adults.
Click to expand...

When two adults get married they do not have the child enter the contract, thus they are not on the marriage certificate...The law you cite is for minors that enter into contracts with adults.. The child doesn't enter into any contract with parents..Notice that kids do not sue their parents for neglect..


----------



## mdk

Silhouette said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
> People who want to deny marriage to gay parents  don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is fucking steak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children?  All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father.  Pretty messed up eh?  The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.
> 
> Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is only for legal contracts a person entered into as a minor. Children do not enter into a marriage contract of their parents, only themselves...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll see...    Time immemorial to present is a loooooooonnng precedent to beat my friend for the rights of children to both mother and father from marriage...the reason it was created was for them, not the adults.
Click to expand...


Marriage was created for children, not adults. That's why we revoke and void marriages of those that don't or can't have any children.


----------



## Slyhunter

Silhouette said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
> People who want to deny marriage to gay parents  don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is fucking steak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children?  All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father.  Pretty messed up eh?  The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.
> 
> Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is only for legal contracts a person entered into as a minor. Children do not enter into a marriage contract of their parents, only themselves...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll see...    Time immemorial to present is a loooooooonnng precedent to beat my friend for the rights of children to both mother and father from marriage...the reason it was created was for them, not the adults.
Click to expand...

Time to modernize. There is no proof that children need both a father and a mother. No proof that parents are the only role models in a child's life or that their genders need to be one man and one woman. The time when we needed women at home producing fighters to die in a Kings battle is long past. And it's time to stop fighting the inevitable wave of change. That doesn't mean it can't be slowed down a bit. Or that common sense doesn't dictate that 30 year old cross dressers shouldn't share bathrooms with 14 year old girls. Much less High School Boys, like myself at one time, sharing showers with my hearts ever lasting lusting desire. I doubt I would've been able to handle my hormones in such a situation. I feel sorry for those with more control of themselves. It'll be their fault that biological parenting is about to become obsolete and cloning, or tank children will be required in order to prevent the genocide of the Human race. But I won't be around much longer so that don't matter much.


----------



## Slyhunter

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
> People who want to deny marriage to gay parents  don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is fucking steak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children?  All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father.  Pretty messed up eh?  The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.
> 
> Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is only for legal contracts a person entered into as a minor. Children do not enter into a marriage contract of their parents, only themselves...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll see...    Time immemorial to present is a loooooooonnng precedent to beat my friend for the rights of children to both mother and father from marriage...the reason it was created was for them, not the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage was created for children, not adults. That's why we revoke and void marriages of those that don't or can't have any children.
Click to expand...

Animals don't get married, they seem to figure out what they need to do without a contract.


----------



## Moonglow

Slyhunter said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
> People who want to deny marriage to gay parents  don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is fucking steak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children?  All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father.  Pretty messed up eh?  The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.
> 
> Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is only for legal contracts a person entered into as a minor. Children do not enter into a marriage contract of their parents, only themselves...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll see...    Time immemorial to present is a loooooooonnng precedent to beat my friend for the rights of children to both mother and father from marriage...the reason it was created was for them, not the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage was created for children, not adults. That's why we revoke and void marriages of those that don't or can't have any children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Animals don't get married, they seem to figure out what they need to do without a contract.
Click to expand...

Marriage contracts are an ancient form of guarantee that women had when they were severely repressed by a  patriarchal society...By all means of the equality women now have, marriage contracts are unnecessary...


----------



## mdk

Slyhunter said:


> Animals don't get married, they seem to figure out what they need to do without a contract.






 

Don't tell them that. lol


----------



## Spare_change

"Child poverty is an ongoing national concern, but few are aware of its principal cause: the absence of married fathers in the home. According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for single parents with children in the United States in 2008 was 36.5 percent. The rate for married couples with children was 6.4 percent. Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 80 percent."

Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty


----------



## Moonglow

Spare_change said:


> "Child poverty is an ongoing national concern, but few are aware of its principal cause: the absence of married fathers in the home. According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for single parents with children in the United States in 2008 was 36.5 percent. The rate for married couples with children was 6.4 percent. Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 80 percent."
> 
> Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty


There is also a huge problem of underachieving males..ie, they won't work or work steady.


----------



## Moonglow

Spare_change said:


> "Child poverty is an ongoing national concern, but few are aware of its principal cause: the absence of married fathers in the home. According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for single parents with children in the United States in 2008 was 36.5 percent. The rate for married couples with children was 6.4 percent. Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 80 percent."
> 
> Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty


That was one of the cost of the equality movement, no choice divorces....


----------



## Syriusly

Slyhunter said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, mom and dad were important figures for you too, as well as the other 85% of the responders to the poll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My mom was important to me. My dad was important to me. My sister was important to me. My grandmother was important to me.
> 
> That doesn't mean I was entitled to have all of them in my life- I was just fortunate.  Just like a girl with two mom's is fortunate to have them in her life- and the boy with the single mom is fortunate to have her in his life.
> 
> Remember again- marriage does not mean children. Children do not mean marriage. Parents are important to their children. If I had someway to snap my fingers and ensure that every child in the United States had two loving caring married parents- i would do so in an instant.
> 
> But our system doesn't require parents to be married. Or married couples to have children. Or married couples with children to stay together. Or even that both parents actually raise the children.
> 
> If Betty is being raised by her mom- and her dad lives 3,000 miles away- she is being raised by a single parent.- and hopefully a good single parent.
> If Betty is being raised by her mom, and her mom's wife- and her dad lives 3,000 miles away- she is being raised by two parents- and hopefully they are both good parents.
> Now- if Betty's two mom's get married- then she would have two married mom's- and her dad would be 3,000 miles away- and their children would all be better off than if Betty was single- or the two mom's were not married.
> 
> And that really is the crux of it. You know that denying marriage to the gay parents of children just harms their children- and you keep pursuing it- because obviously you want to harm their children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
> People who want to deny marriage to gay parents  don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is fucking steak.
Click to expand...


I don't know about every person who wants to deny marriage to gay parents- I was speaking to Silhouette and her perverse multi year campaign to deny the children of gay parents married parents.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
> People who want to deny marriage to gay parents  don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is fucking steak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children?  All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father.  Pretty messed up eh?  The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.
> 
> Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is only for legal contracts a person entered into as a minor. Children do not enter into a marriage contract of their parents, only themselves...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll see...s.
Click to expand...


We will see- so far there is absolutely no momentum or drive for a Constitutional Amendment to deny gay couples marriage.

And that is what it would take.


----------



## Syriusly

mdk said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
> People who want to deny marriage to gay parents  don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is fucking steak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children?  All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father.  Pretty messed up eh?  The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.
> 
> Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is only for legal contracts a person entered into as a minor. Children do not enter into a marriage contract of their parents, only themselves...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Sil's imaginary legal world, children that don't exist yet are an implicit party to a marriage contract. Mind you, not a single court in this nation recognizes that legal standard, but none of that matters when you have a mentally ill obsession.
Click to expand...


But wait- not only the children- but the grandparents too are implicit parties to the marriage contract.

Its all part of Silly's dance to rationalize her bigotry towards gay parents and their children.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
> People who want to deny marriage to gay parents  don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is fucking steak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.
Click to expand...


Ergo you are delusional.


----------



## Syriusly

mdk said:


> Do you remember all the oral arguments and Amicus briefs opposing gay marriage citing the Infancy Doctrine as their reason? Yeah, me neither.



Yeah- oddly the attorney''s for all of the states who fought to deny gay couples their right to marriage missed that one. I guess they didn't go to the same law school as Silly.

However States did try to argue that marriages were for the benefit of children- that failed for the obvious reasons;
a) the States happily married infertile couples- without any test or challenge to prove that they could have children and
b) some states actually have provisions for legal marriage that barred any possibiility of having children.

Which is why Silhouette's arguments fail every time- State marriage laws are not for the benefit of the children- they are for the benefit of the couple marrying.


----------



## Silhouette

The qualifications, Syriusly, are adult male and adult female.  Without children present at the outset.  Anticipation is the keyword for the implied partners in the marriage contract.


----------



## Silhouette

How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children?  All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father.  Pretty messed up eh?  The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.

Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.


Moonglow said:


> *That is only for legal contracts a person entered into as a minor.* Children do not enter into a marriage contract of their parents, only themselves...



And to contracts where children share implicit ANTICIPATED enjoyments as in marriage's case, since the dawn of human history.  They are THE anticipated partners of the marriage contract and the reason it was created in the first place.  Og and Thorna as well as PhDs today noticed that when a boy lacks a father of a girl a mother in their life, they suffer real actual suffering and psychological deprivation.

So we created marriage to anticipate children.  Adult male marries adult female.  Whether or not they produce children is irrelevant to the contract since its designs are in anticipation of children.  They must be.  Because another thing states hope for is that people marry BEFORE they have children for the child's best interest from day one to adulthood.  (again, lack of implied partners at outset of contract ALSO about children's best interest/share in said contract).

So, boys need a father, girls a mother.  And so adult males and adult females not related too closely by blood (again for reasons of the children), qualify for marriage.  Any other arrangement like so-called "gay marriage" cannot qualify because not only does it not provide the necessary father for the boy or mother for the girl, it (il)legally separates those children from the missing gender 100% of the time.  Which is institutionalized cruelty to children.

Yes, I said "gay marriage is institutionalized cruelty to children."  Because that is precisely what it is.  And 85% of the people who voted in the poll above agree, whether or not they thought it through when they were voting .


----------



## mdk




----------



## Silhouette

AquaAthena said:


> I'm an indepentent who was fortunate to have had a mother and a father as head of household. I learned separate and valuable lessons from each as well as those values they held in common. It was a perfect, imperfect family within which I was given the tools to use in accepting or avoiding those choices and repercusions I would come to make as I struck out on my own. I payed attention to some of them.



So you felt both a mother and father were vital to you from that marriage?  Both your father, a man and your mother, a woman had their intrinsic input to which you felt was unique and invaluable?


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children?  ..


[/QUOTE]

I think that is just a lie you promote in order to hurt gay couples and their children.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children?  All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father.  Pretty messed up eh?  The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.
> 
> Ergo, the gay marriage contract



Ergo, Silhouette is delusional- and just makes up crap about marriage.


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> Anticipation is the keyword for the implied partners in the marriage contract.



Anticipation is entirely your fantasy contribution to the marriage contract between two people.


----------



## Silhouette

AquaAthena said:


> I'm an indepentent who was fortunate to have had a mother and a father as head of household. I learned separate and valuable lessons from each as well as those values they held in common. It was a perfect, imperfect family within which I was given the tools to use in accepting or avoiding those choices and repercusions I would come to make as I struck out on my own. I payed attention to some of them.





Silhouette said:


> So you felt both a mother and father were vital to you from that marriage?  Both your father, a man and your mother, a woman had their intrinsic input to which you felt was unique and invaluable?


Something about these two posts bothering you Syriusly?


----------



## rightwinger

Gays seem to be doing quite well as parents


----------



## Syriusly

Silhouette said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an indepentent who was fortunate to have had a mother and a father as head of household. I learned separate and valuable lessons from each as well as those values they held in common. It was a perfect, imperfect family within which I was given the tools to use in accepting or avoiding those choices and repercusions I would come to make as I struck out on my own. I payed attention to some of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you felt both a mother and father were vital to you from that marriage?  Both your father, a man and your mother, a woman had their intrinsic input to which you felt was unique and invaluable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Something about these two posts bothering you Syriusly?
Click to expand...


the only thing that bothers me is you pretending to reply to me without using reply.

Other than that- nope. 

I was fortunate to have two wonderful parents.

My neighbor was unfortunate enough that her mom remarried a man who molested her as a kid.

Others i knew were fortunate enough to be raised by their mom after their dad abandoned them. 

Now the two married gay couples I know aren't raising any kids- but if they were- the kids would be lucky to have them as parents.


----------



## Silhouette

Sorry Syriusly, your exceptions don't run the rule.  Except that you had a mom and dad but seek to legally remove that same enjoyment from kids.


----------



## Silhouette

rightwinger said:


> Gays seem to be doing quite well as parents


Except that the kids are either missing a mother or father for life, via contract.


----------



## Silhouette

theDoctorisIn said:


> I'm neither a Democrat, a Moderate, or a Republican, and none of your options describe my family life.


Wow, one of the most comprehensive poll options on your board and still you find a reason to denigrate it?  Could it be you don't like the 80+% results against stripping kids of either a mother or father for life (using a contract)?


----------



## jillian

Silhouette said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm neither a Democrat, a Moderate, or a Republican, and none of your options describe my family life.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, one of the most comprehensive poll options on your board and still you find a reason to denigrate it?  Could it be you don't like the 80+% results against stripping kids of either a mother or father for life (using a contract)?
Click to expand...


the "board" is 70% trumptards

you reflect nothing but your own insane bigotry


----------



## Silhouette

jillian said:


> the "board" is 70% trumptards
> 
> you reflect nothing but your own insane bigotry


Nope, not when these votes were cast.  The board was mostly pay per post liberals and for sure liberal moderators.  Try again.


----------



## jillian

Silhouette said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the "board" is 70% trumptards
> 
> you reflect nothing but your own insane bigotry
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, not when these votes were cast.  The board was mostly pay per post liberals and for sure liberal moderators.  Try again.
Click to expand...

Liberal moderators? Posters? On THIS board?!?!?!!!?  Lololololololololol


----------



## Uncensored2008

jillian said:


> [
> 
> the "board" is 70% trumptards
> 
> you reflect nothing but your own insane bigotry



The nation is 70% normals, Comrade Fakelawyer. 

You ISIS loving demoscum may control the media, but you sure don't represent the nation.


----------



## Uncensored2008

jillian said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the "board" is 70% trumptards
> 
> you reflect nothing but your own insane bigotry
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, not when these votes were cast.  The board was mostly pay per post liberals and for sure liberal moderators.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberal moderators? Posters? On THIS board?!?!?!!!?  Lololololololololol
Click to expand...



Coyote, The Dr. is in, del/don't taz me

All far left.


----------



## Silhouette

Uncensored2008 said:


> Coyote, The Dr. is in, del/don't taz me
> 
> All far left.


Yep.


----------

