# A Simple Question For Those Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 17, 2017)

I have a  simple question for those who oppose same sex marriage   on the grounds that it is detrimental to children - which will come at the end of this post.  But first allow me to present a senerio that is quite common.

The setting: A time and place where same sex marriage is not possible and only married couples can   adopt .

The people:* Kathy *is a 29 year old divorced woman  with two year old twins-* a boy named Brandon and a girl named Britany* .  After the birth of the children, the  husband , Jack, became abusive and angry which resulted in Kathy filing for divorce. *Jack,* over the last year and a half has had minimal contact with the children by his choice, and has had to be hauled into court several time for not paying child support

*Kathy* has always felt that she was more attracted to women than men but has supppressed those feelings because of taboos and social pressures,  and wanting to avoid disapproval of friends and family . However,  public opinion and social norms are changing and she is ready to  embrace her feelings, be who she really is,  and come out as a Lesbian.

Soon after her divorce, *Kathy meets Angela,* a Lesbian and they hit it off. The children like her and she is crazy about them. Within 6 months* Angela* moves in with *Kathy* in the home that Kathy owns exclusivly  as a result of the divorce settlement.    In time, it becomes clear that the children are bonding with Angela and she is very involved witgh them

A few years go by, the children are now in school and doing well.  They are clearly well adjusted and have many friends. Then the unthinkable happens. *Kathy *is  killed in an auto accident.  Social Services at the hospital notifies Child Protective Services (CPS) that there are children living with an unrelated person who is not their legal guardian and investigates. The first thing that they do is to contact the father who has moved some distance away and is with another woman.  They find out that the woman does not want kids and the father's interest is tempid at best. They consider charging him with abandonment but determine that placing the children with him might be putting them at risk of abuse or neglect because of the attiudes of the father and his girlfriend.

The next step is for CPS  is to explore relatives on both sided of the family who might be able and willing to take the children but* Kathy *had not been close with any of them  some austricized her for living with a woman. None are interested in taking in the children.

Meanwhile, Angela and the children are understanably devistated by the loss of *Kathy* . Compounding  the grief is childrens fear that they will be taken away from* Angela*  and sent off to live with people who they don't know,  and away from their friends and school. And of course *Angela* is fearful of loosing the children.

To be sure CPS could reccomend to the court that *Angela* be given custody  but there is no guarantee that they will, or that the court would follow that reccomendation. And, if a relitive later came forward and asked to be considered as the guardian, or if the father objected, Angela could loose custody at any time. It is also plausable that CPS would reccomend placement into foster care.  Remember, *Angela* has no rights!!

Now one might say that children have rights, and these children are old enough- now 7- so express their wishes. However, that does not mean that their rights and wishes will be respected by the legal system and the adults who have power over them. The court might order a best interest analysis which would include a lengthy process of evaluating the degree of bonding between* Angela* and the children .  But even if resolved in their favor, they will have already suffered unnecessary trauma and will bear those scars for the  rest of their lives.

Of course, all of this could have been avoided if *Kathy and Angela*  could have been married so that Angela could adopt the children as a second parent.

So now, my question is :  Can anyone say that the best interest of * Brandon* and *Britany* were served in a system where *Kathy and Angela* COULD NOT GET MARRIED? Yes or No and why


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Nov 17, 2017)

They can be married

/thread


----------



## Peach (Nov 17, 2017)

Not simple, still the best interests of the child are with the woman who helped raise them, they need no more shocks.


----------



## DGS49 (Nov 20, 2017)

A simple question?  Why did it take a dozen paragraphs to set it up?

For ANY law on the books, it is possible to imagine a set of circumstances where the application of it would be "unjust" or silly or counterproductive.

Why not suppose the kids have "bonded" with a homeless prostitute drug addict, or an illegal alien who's being deported tomorrow?

Just because you can imagine a scenario where a law doesn't work as planned does not mean that the basic legal, historical, moral, and economic underpinnings of a law have to the thrown out.  The first choice in any broken family, death, or abandonment situation is to find a parent, and if not a parent then another relative.  It works 95% of the time.  Judges normally have the discretion to be creative when all the facts and circumstances point to it.  In the scenario you have imagined, there will probably be a relative of one of the natural parents who is trying to get custody, that that relative would probably get preference over the house-mate.

Some homosexual couples (mainly women) can be great parents and some NORMAL couples can be terrible parents.  So what's your point, exactly?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 20, 2017)

DGS49 said:


> A simple question?  Why did it take a dozen paragraphs to set it up?
> 
> For ANY law on the books, it is possible to imagine a set of circumstances where the application of it would be "unjust" or silly or counterproductive.
> 
> ...


That is quite a rant to set up the question of "what is your point" when the point should be obvious. The children were harmed by the fact that the two women could not marry and that Angela could not adopt as a second parent? Clear now?

What I'm getting from this is that  1) you recognize that at least some Lesbians can be great parents 2) you're skeptical at best about gay men as parents 3) you're not to enthusiastic about same sex marriage or, at least, you wish to downplay the injustice and harm done by prohibiting it. Am I correct??


----------



## Snouter (Nov 23, 2017)

The same sex marriage argument is INSANE.  This idiotic thread confirms it.

The only reason for same sex marriage is to insult the parents and tweak the IRS system to get inheritance in addition to the diabolical effort to fuck up children in their custody.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 23, 2017)

The question is why should some other individual control your life in the first place?

They can choose their own track in life but should stay the fuck out of other peoples life choices...Many of these people have the nerve to whine about how small government and personal responsibility they're but sure as fuck want the government to enforce their belief system against other people. Maybe they should deal with their own goddamn life and I'll deal with mine.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 23, 2017)

Conservatives sure bitch about the importance of the constitutions but the constitutions doesn't allow for another group of people to be discriminated against. That is why homosexual marriage is legal! Accept it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 23, 2017)

Snouter said:


> The same sex marriage argument is INSANE.  This idiotic thread confirms it.
> 
> The only reason for same sex marriage is to insult the parents and tweak the IRS system to get inheritance in addition to the diabolical effort to fuck up children in their custody.


How did you get so fucked up?? Straight parents??


----------



## Anathema (Nov 23, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So now, my question is :  Can anyone say that the best interest of * Brandon* and *Britany* were served in a system where *Kathy and Angela* COULD NOT GET MARRIED? Yes or No and why



The best interests of those children would be served by having them placed with relatives in a mixed-gender couple who can raise them properly. If thsts not possible, then they are bedt setved beco.ing wards of the state. In either setting, serious mental health services for both children need to be provided.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 23, 2017)

Anathema said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So now, my question is :  Can anyone say that the best interest of * Brandon* and *Britany* were served in a system where *Kathy and Angela* COULD NOT GET MARRIED? Yes or No and why
> ...


You don't know much about kids or anything else .Serious mental health services  will be needed if they are wrenched away from the only person who they relate to as a parent figure. In you case, however, serious mental health services   would be a waist of time and effort . Some things can't be fixed.


----------



## Anathema (Nov 23, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> ]You don't know much about kids or anything else .Serious mental health services  will be needed if they are wrenched away from the only person who they relate to as a parent figure.



I know plenty about kids. More than I'd like to. What I don't do is believe thst children have Rights of their own. The role of children is to learn how to work within a proper society, so they do so when they become adults.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 23, 2017)

Anathema said:


> What I don't do is believe thst children have Rights of their own.


Holy shit!! Seriously?? I hope to the Goddess that you don't have any children!!


----------



## GreenBean (Nov 23, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Can anyone say that the best interest of * Brandon* and *Britany* were served in a system where *Kathy and Angela* COULD NOT GET MARRIED? Yes or No and why


Your situation / setting - be it hypothetical or actual does not fit the standard mold. Personally I am involved [casually] in a group that opposes gay adoption but so far as Lesbians are concerned there is very little reason to oppose their adopting children or even raising their own with their dike partners.  The primary opposition is against Gay men - other than same sex attraction gay men and women are not  the same.  Gay men, based on their history as a group have no business having custodianship over any minor.


----------



## GreenBean (Nov 23, 2017)

Anathema said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > ]You don't know much about kids or anything else .Serious mental health services  will be needed if they are wrenched away from the only person who they relate to as a parent figure.
> ...


Very poorly worded - although I think I know what you were trying to convey - you came across as a true hater - I don't believe you are, just sound that way


----------



## Anathema (Nov 23, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy shit!! Seriously?? I hope to the Goddess that you don't have any children!!



Seriously. Children are PROPERTY, not people. They exist to learn, nothing more.


----------



## Anathema (Nov 23, 2017)

GreenBean said:


> Very poorly worded - although I think I know what you were trying to convey - you came across as a true hater - I don't believe you are, just sound that way



I am a hater. I have no use for kids, or any group of people who do not support themselves and/or are exempted from the consequences of their decisions.


----------



## GreenBean (Nov 23, 2017)

Anathema said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Very poorly worded - although I think I know what you were trying to convey - you came across as a true hater - I don't believe you are, just sound that way
> ...


So I guess you were never a kid - born as a grumpy Old Man ?


----------



## Marion Morrison (Nov 23, 2017)

Faggotry confuses children. In the old days, they got hung. I'm thinking Jefferson advocated for being too easy on them.
I care about the kids, and they shouldn't be exposed to your faggotry. TheProgressivePatriot 

Kids come from God.

Faggots do what their penis tells them to.

/thread.


----------



## GreenBean (Nov 23, 2017)

Marion Morrison said:


> Faggotry confuses children. In the old days, they got hung. I'm thinking Jefferson advocated for being too easy on them.
> I care about the kids, and they shouldn't be exposed to your faggotry.
> 
> Kids come from God.
> ...


Crudely put - but right on target


----------



## mdk (Nov 23, 2017)

Marion Morrison said:


> Faggotry confuses children. In the old days, they got hung. I'm thinking Jefferson advocated for being too easy on them.
> I care about the kids, and they shouldn't be exposed to your faggotry.
> 
> Kids come from God.
> ...



You think I should be hung?


----------



## Marion Morrison (Nov 23, 2017)

I ain't mad @ mdk, but shoving your faggotry in kid's faces would piss me off. Something tells me he's a "Live and let live" type of fellow.

I am too. Let kids be kids.

When they reach puberty, allow them to make their own decisions.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Nov 23, 2017)

mdk said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > Faggotry confuses children. In the old days, they got hung. I'm thinking Jefferson advocated for being too easy on them.
> ...



No, are you shoving what you do behind bedroom doors in kid's faces? I would hope not.

Children are innocent. Oh! I forgot the "People like Progressive Patriot" part.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Nov 23, 2017)

Anathema said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Holy shit!! Seriously?? I hope to the Goddess that you don't have any children!!
> ...


\

Holy fuck, you're a moron.


----------



## mdk (Nov 23, 2017)

Marion Morrison said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...



No, I don't have sex in front of children. In fact, I don't know any couple that does and I would call the proper authorities if I did.


----------



## GreenBean (Nov 23, 2017)

mdk said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > Faggotry confuses children. In the old days, they got hung. I'm thinking Jefferson advocated for being too easy on them.
> ...


I don't give a rats ass how well you are hung - but  I wouldn't shed a tear if you were hanged


----------



## Marion Morrison (Nov 23, 2017)

mdk may be homosexual, but he's not trying to pervert children, unlike The Progressive Patriot.

Guess who I'd like to string up? 

Get a rope! Some stuff is worthy of that.


----------



## GreenBean (Nov 23, 2017)

mdk said:


> and I would call the proper authorities if I did.


Would you make the call before or after you did it ?


----------



## Marion Morrison (Nov 23, 2017)

GreenBean said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...



I would, I'd shoot that rope like Eastwood if I could. mdk is OK.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 23, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> The question is why should some other individual control your life in the first place?
> 
> They can choose their own track in life but should stay the fuck out of other peoples life choices...Many of these people have the nerve to whine about how small government and personal responsibility they're but sure as fuck want the government to enforce their belief system against other people. Maybe they should deal with their own goddamn life and I'll deal with mine.


These people are called conservatives.


----------



## GreenBean (Nov 23, 2017)

The only good fag is a  ------ fill in the blank ------ fag


----------



## mdk (Nov 23, 2017)

GreenBean said:


> I don't give a rats ass how well you are hung - but I wouldn't shed a tear if you were hanged



You wound me deeply.


----------



## mdk (Nov 23, 2017)

GreenBean said:


> The only good fag is a  ------ fill in the blank ------ fag



Besides your huge pussy, what's stopping you?


----------



## Marion Morrison (Nov 23, 2017)

mdk said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > I don't give a rats ass how well you are hung - but I wouldn't shed a tear if you were hanged
> ...



You'll be ok. This guy don't know nothin'


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 23, 2017)

Anathema said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So now, my question is :  Can anyone say that the best interest of * Brandon* and *Britany* were served in a system where *Kathy and Angela* COULD NOT GET MARRIED? Yes or No and why
> ...


Clearly the best interests of children would be served by keeping conservatives out of positions of power and authority. 

Indeed, that would be in the best interests of everyone.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Nov 23, 2017)

Whoops! I forgot the:


----------



## mdk (Nov 23, 2017)

Marion Morrison said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...



Of course I will. The next time I care what some internet random thinks of me will be the first.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 23, 2017)

GreenBean said:


> Your situation / setting - be it hypothetical or actual does not fit the standard mold. Personally I am involved [casually] in a group that opposes gay adoption but so far as Lesbians are concerned there is very little reason to oppose their adopting children or even raising their own with their dike partners.  The primary opposition is against Gay men - other than same sex attraction gay men and women are not  the same.  Gay men, based on their history as a group have no business having custodianship over any minor.



  It's probably not wise to hand custody of children over to any serious sexual deviants, of any reasonable alternative exists.  Look at the plight iof Tommy Lobel, adopted by a pair of lesbians who have convinced him that he's really a girl, and at the age of eleven, have started him on puberty-blocking hormones to prevent him from developing normally.  What do you think the chances are that this would happen to him, if he'd been adopted by a proper hetersexual couple?

  I think it stands to reason that anyone who is into any serious sexual perversions, if granted custody of a child, has a greater chance of trying to impose such perversions on that child.


----------



## Anathema (Nov 24, 2017)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Clearly the best interests of children would be served by keeping conservatives out of positions of power and authority.



Ah yes, because we need to let kids be kids. We wouldn't want to instill morals or valyes into them at a young age. We wouldnt want to reach them about personal responsibility, the consequences of poor decisions, or Right and Wrong BEFORE the point where those lessons come with significant hail time. We definitely wouldn' want to teach them that they are expected to add something the system rather than jyst taking from it. 

You sound like my father-in-law, who lets his grandkids get away with everything, and who one day, fairly soon, will be visiting most of hem in prison.


----------



## G.T. (Nov 24, 2017)

Anathema said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly the best interests of children would be served by keeping conservatives out of positions of power and authority.
> ...


----------



## Anathema (Nov 24, 2017)

Marion Morrison said:


> Holy fuck, you're a moron.



I keep hearing that. 

Interestingly enough the 3 nieces and 3 nephews being raised my way are all at or above grade level and can be taken into public without fear of causing chaos. The 5 nephews and 2 nieces being raised in base society are mostly looking at heading to the ghetto, welfare office or prison when they turn 18 and can' be trusted more thsn an arm's length away in public places.


----------



## G.T. (Nov 24, 2017)

Anathema said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > Holy fuck, you're a moron.
> ...


----------



## Marion Morrison (Nov 24, 2017)

Bob Blaylock said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Your situation / setting - be it hypothetical or actual does not fit the standard mold. Personally I am involved [casually] in a group that opposes gay adoption but so far as Lesbians are concerned there is very little reason to oppose their adopting children or even raising their own with their dike partners.  The primary opposition is against Gay men - other than same sex attraction gay men and women are not  the same.  Gay men, based on their history as a group have no business having custodianship over any minor.
> ...



But some people that are that way are rational and would never do that.

I had a friend that was raised (adopted) by Korean dykes. They treated him pretty bad, he got out about between 16-18. Before 18, I remember.


----------



## mdk (Nov 24, 2017)

GreenBean said:


> Aww poor little queer . Let me ask you - are you a dirty cock sucker or just a cock sucker ?



Save these questions for your Grindr account. I am not interested.


----------



## GreenBean (Nov 24, 2017)

Marion Morrison said:


> But some people that are that way are rational and would never do that.


Which is all the more reason they should not be exposed to the temptation. If the perverted drive is embedded in their psyche - during a moment of weakness even a moral rational queer will sometimes give in to temptation and both the faggot and child suffer as a consequence.  But hey damn the kids and damn the fag so long as the liberal agenda is advanced - right ?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 25, 2017)

I want to personally  congratulate all of the zombie troll bots who don't yet know that they're who came out from under their rocks to spew their moronic and bigoted bovine excrement. You have succeeded in running the thread on what could have been an informative topic, off of the rails. You all have the mentality and maturity of an emotionally disturbed 9 year old.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 25, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I want to personally  congratulate all of the zombie troll bots who don't yet know that they're who came out from under their rocks to spew their moronic and bigoted bovine excrement. You have succeeded in running the thread on what could have been an informative topic, off of the rails. You all have the mentality and maturity of an emotionally disturbed 9 year old.



  Says the freak who openly sides with faggots and trannies and other perverted filth.


----------



## GreenBean (Nov 27, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I want to personally  congratulate all of the zombie troll bots who don't yet know that they're who came out from under their rocks to spew their moronic and bigoted bovine excrement. You have succeeded in running the thread on what could have been an informative topic, off of the rails. You all have the mentality and maturity of an emotionally disturbed 9 year old.


----------



## American88 (Nov 27, 2017)

Snouter said:


> The same sex marriage argument is INSANE.  This idiotic thread confirms it.
> 
> The only reason for same sex marriage is to insult the parents and tweak the IRS system to get inheritance in addition to the diabolical effort to fuck up children in their custody.




Exactly!!


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 28, 2017)

This thread is about making either fathers or mothers irrelevant in boys and girls lives.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 28, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> This thread is about making either fathers or mothers irrelevant in boys and girls lives.


This thread is about our responsibility to children-the responsibility to ensure they every child has a stable, secure and permanent home   with a legal guardian.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 28, 2017)

No this thread is about making either fathers or mothers irrelevant in children's lives.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 28, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> No this thread is about making either fathers or mothers irrelevant in children's lives.


You can believe that  equine excrement if you want. The fact is that hundreds of thousands of kids that have two moms o two dads are doing just as well as all of the others and better than many with single parents- and you can't prove otherwise.  You are blinded by your bigotry not smart enough to know that most people do not by into your appeals to ingorance


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 28, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> No this thread is about making either fathers or mothers irrelevant in children's lives.


This thread is actually about same sex marriage and using children in this way to justify your bigotry is abhorrent.   A few fun facts. Please feel free to try to refute them. I am confident that you can't.

1 There is no credible evidence that children need parents of the opposite sex

2. Banning same sex marriage will not ensure  that more children will have a mom and a dad. It will only result in more children not having two legal parents.

3.Gay folks have been having and adopting children long before there was  same sex marriage, so this "mom and dad" blather  is the wrong argument. It is stupid as hell. 

Why don't you just admit your bigotry and stop shamelessly pretending to care about the kids


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 29, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> No this thread is about making either fathers or mothers irrelevant in children's lives.





TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You can believe that  equine excrement if you want. The fact is that hundreds of thousands of kids that have two moms o two dads are doing just as well as all of the others and better than many with single parents- and you can't prove otherwise.  You are blinded by your bigotry not smart enough to know that most people do not by into your appeals to ingorance


I'm sure many hundreds or thousands of kids are doing OK with single parents.  But making their missing father or mother "irrelevant" doesn't help children in general over time.

You know where I'm going with this so just surrender while you can still save face and not wind up like all your fellow LGBT cult payroll bloggers here: looking like you're advocating harming children to forward the deviant-sex-as-identity agendas.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 29, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > No this thread is about making either fathers or mothers irrelevant in children's lives.
> ...


Surrender ??!! To a raving lunatic who is too much of a dishonest coward to admit to bigotry and instead shamelessly uses helpless children who will be harmed if their gay parents can't marry.

And, you're not even dealing with the points that I made in post 55. You have no response to the simple truths .You are one being made a damned fool of  and need to quit you dishonest game


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 29, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > No this thread is about making either fathers or mothers irrelevant in children's lives.
> ...


This is something that I posted prior to Obergefell and it is still true and relevant  now. I doubt if you or any of the other bigots around here will even read it leave along formulate any sort of reasonable response. You anti -intellectual types can't deal with anything that challenges your moron pre-conceived ideas that fly in the face of logic and reality

While marriage equality for gay and lesbian people is making astounding advances and is likely to be the law of the land by next June, there are still many who are resisting the inevitable. Opponents of equality are at the end of their legal rope, with every argument ever devised having been decimated by the courts.

 The most egregious of those arguments is that gay people make bad parents, that children should have a mom and a dad, and that they do less well when they don’t. All of that has been debunked numerous times but that is not the focus of this post. Rather, it is that like it or not, for better or worse, gay people do and will continue to have children in their care and when we allow discrimination against those gay parents, we penalize the children.




> *Extract from Kennedy's Windsor Opinion -* The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558 , and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify*. 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. See 26 U. S. C. §106; Treas. Reg. §1.106–1, 26 CFR §1.106–1 (2012); IRS Private Letter Ruling 9850011 (Sept. 10, 199 . And it denies or re- duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security. See Social Security Administration, Social Security Survivors Benefits 5 (2012) (benefits available to a surviving spouse caring for the couple’s child), online at http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf.



*Marriage Equality and adoption…The Right Thing to do For The Children By Progressive Patriot 9.12.14*

People who use children to assail gay marriage and adoption either have not given much thought to the down side of these bans-or – are being intellectually dishonest in saying that they take their position on behalf of the children which they really care little about.

adoption *It is a logical fallacy-an appeal to ignorance if you will to insist that same sex marriage and of children by gays will be detrimental to those children, and that society as a whole, will somehow be harmed by these arrangements*. Many will take the position that children are entitled to a “mom and a dad” That may be so but the reality is that many people in this life do not have everything that they are entitled to. There are many children without both a mother and a father, and some without either. Banning gay marriage and adoption is not going to change that.

*Children also have a right to a stable, nurturing and permanent home and it is well established that that goal can be realized in a variety of family structures.* The NJ Department of Families and Children-the public agency charged with the responsibility of finding adoptive homes for children –states, in part, on their web site that no one will be denied the opportunity to adopt based on sexual orientation. In fact, the Department’s Division of Child Protection and Permanency (formerly DYFS) has been placing children for adoption with gay and lesbian people- those who are single and those who are in a relationship- for decades with good outcomes for the children. And there are many, many more who still need homes while
there is a dearth of people willing and able to adopt them. I know this because I worked in the foster care and adoption field in New Jersey for 26 years. I might add that children who are placed for adoption are already in a situation where they have neither a mother nor a father available to them. *To imply that that a child would better off languishing in the foster care system as a ward of the state, then to be adopted into a nontraditional family is beyond absurd. 
*
Furthermore, the vast majority of child psychologists will tell you that there are far more important factors that impact a child’s development than the gender or sexual orientation of the parents. No doubt that one could dredge up research studies that claim to prove that gay parenting is harmful. However*, well established organizations like the American Psychological Association take the position that gay and lesbian parents are just as capable of rearing emotionally healthy children as anyone else.* Yet even if family composition was, as some purport, a critical factor in children’s development, the fact is that there are and will always be children in non-traditional living situations where they do not have a mother and a father. Like it or not, it is also a fact that gay and lesbian people have children, be it from a prior relationship, adoption, or surrogacy.

*Denying gay and lesbians the opportunity to marry does nothing to ensure that any greater number of children will have a home with a mother and a father.* All that will be accomplished will be to deny numerous children the legal rights, protections, status and stability that comes with having married parents. *And, to deny gays the ability to adopt will only ensure that more children will have neither a mother nor a father.* Everyone is entitled to their moral views and religious beliefs but it is disingenuous and opprobrious to use children as pawns in the lost fight against equality by bloviating about how children would be harmed by it. While single people can be great parents, the benefits to children of having two parents is undeniable

*The benefits to children of allowing two people who are in a committed relationship to be married are obvious for anyone willing to look at the issue objectively*. Those who truly care about children should be willing to open all of the possible pathways for them to be adopted and to have married parents when possible.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 29, 2017)

Likewise, people who use children bound in contracts to make either fathers or mothers legally-irrelevant to them are acting a nefarious agenda.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 29, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Likewise, people who use children bound in contracts to make either fathers or mothers legally-irrelevant to them are acting a nefarious agenda.


You're a freakin' broken record!!  That's all that you have!! ??   Pathetic!!   I was right about the response that I predicted. YOU are finished here! Anyone with a brain can see what you are.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 29, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Likewise, people who use children bound in contracts to make either fathers or mothers legally-irrelevant to them are acting a nefarious agenda.





TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You're a freakin' broken record!!  That's all that you have!! ??   Pathetic!!   I was right about the response that I predicted. YOU are finished here! Anyone with a brain can see what you are.


You sound a little edgy and heated here ^^  ...defensive.  Need to talk about it?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 29, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Likewise, people who use children bound in contracts to make either fathers or mothers legally-irrelevant to them are acting a nefarious agenda.



So all of those sperm donors are acting on a nefarious agenda?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 29, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Likewise, people who use children bound in contracts to make either fathers or mothers legally-irrelevant to them are acting a nefarious agenda.
> ...


I win!!


----------



## Boss (Nov 29, 2017)

I see nothing in your scenario which would REQUIRE marriage between the two women for CPS or courts to rule in favor of what is best for the children. It's two different issues but you are attempting to connect them together for purposes of promoting a specific policy. 

There is certainly legal precedent for non-parents being awarded custody of children following the unexpected death of a sole custodian. Your fictional scenario would have been much more thought-provoking had you introduced caring, loving and closely connected maternal grandparents who were willing to raise the children. In such a situation, we have to weigh the options of relatives vs. partner and the intrinsic nature of disrupting the living arrangement of the children. That could be a compelling argument and one that would be difficult to determine without careful evaluation of the particular case circumstances. But at least that would be a compelling scenario. What you've presented is not.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 29, 2017)

Boss said:


> I see nothing in your scenario which would REQUIRE marriage between the two women for CPS or courts to rule in favor of what is best for the children. It's two different issues but you are attempting to connect them together for purposes of promoting a specific policy.
> 
> There is certainly legal precedent for non-parents being awarded custody of children following the unexpected death of a sole custodian. Your fictional scenario would have been much more thought-provoking had you introduced caring, loving and closely connected maternal grandparents who were willing to raise the children. In such a situation, we have to weigh the options of relatives vs. partner and the intrinsic nature of disrupting the living arrangement of the children. That could be a compelling argument and one that would be difficult to determine without careful evaluation of the particular case circumstances. But at least that would be a compelling scenario. What you've presented is not.


I addressed  the issue of grand parents and other relatives. There were none. At the time and in the place of the story, marriage could well have been the difference in whether or not the kids got to stay with the only person who they know and are bonded to. Accept that or not. It is a case for same sex marriage.


----------



## Boss (Nov 29, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I addressed the issue of grand parents and other relatives. There were none. At the time and in the place of the story, marriage could well have been the difference in whether or not the kids got to stay with the only person who they know and are bonded to. Accept that or not. It is a case for same sex marriage.



Again, it's NOT a case for any such thing! There is no reason for "marriage" as some artificial criteria regarding what is best for the children and there is adequate case law to support custodianship to a non-parent in these circumstances.  You imagining there is some false criteria doesn't create one... SORRY! 

I didn't say that you didn't address the grands. I said that your argument would be more compelling with loving and caring grandparents who wanted to raise the children. At least in that scenario we would be compelled to consider and weigh which option would be for the overall better benefit of the children and their future. In YOUR scenario, there is only one option that is optimal.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 29, 2017)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I addressed the issue of grand parents and other relatives. There were none. At the time and in the place of the story, marriage could well have been the difference in whether or not the kids got to stay with the only person who they know and are bonded to. Accept that or not. It is a case for same sex marriage.
> ...


Ah yes, I think I remember now. You are opposed to marriage altogether, right?? I'm not going to re-litigate it again now. In the real world, these people who I spoke of could have benefited by marriage. Period


----------



## Boss (Nov 29, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Well my position regarding marriage has nothing to do with your argument or whether your point is valid or not. Your arguments have to stand on their own merit, regardless of my personal viewpoints and you've simply failed to support your argument. No, there would be no reason for "marriage" in your scenario and there is adequate case law to support that. In fact, I personally know of a similar situation within my own family.

I have a niece who is currently being raised by her godmother who is not related. She is the legal guardian appointed by the court and she won legal guardianship over the grandparents who fought for custody when her mother died. The court found the child had a closer relationship with the godmother and it would be in her best interest to be raised by her as opposed to the grandparents. The courts generally rule on the sole basis of what is best for the children on a case by case basis. So your argument that "marriage" is some sort of prerequisite is nonsense.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 29, 2017)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Well, good for them, but it does not mean that it would play out that way in all cases. Courts and CPS people are fickle and have their biases. Also, in my story- and yes it is a "story" there is no one who is really interested in or connected to the kids, and that is plausible. I know because I worked in CPS for a lot of years and have experience dealing with the court system. 

In addition, children benefit from having married  guardians, even in the absence of a tragedy.


----------



## Boss (Nov 29, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Well, good for them, but it does not mean that it would play out that way in all cases. Courts and CPS people are fickle and have their biases. Also, in my story- and yes it is a "story" there is no one who is really interested in or connected to the kids, and that is plausible. I know because I worked in CPS for a lot of years and have experience dealing with the court system.
> 
> In addition, children benefit from having married guardians, even in the absence of a tragedy.



Nothing plays out a given way "in all cases." Courts and CPS have ONE primary consideration... what is best for the child. That supersedes everything else. In some cases, it even supersedes parenthood and certainly supersedes marriage. There are situations where even a biological parent may be denied guardianship if the court finds they are not fit to raise the child and another better option is available. If you honestly worked with CPS, you know this is a legal and ethical fact and it's shocking you would even attempt to argue against it. 

In your fake scenario, the court would most likely award custody to the partner who was raising the child or children, unless a compelling argument could be made that they were unfit. Marriage would have ZERO to do with that. Again, it is shocking to me that you want to establish some kind of guarantee of guardianship based on same-sex marriage rather than consideration of what is best for the child. There is NO legal precedent for this whatsoever and your continued implications to the contrary are absolutely appalling and indecent.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 30, 2017)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Well, good for them, but it does not mean that it would play out that way in all cases. Courts and CPS people are fickle and have their biases. Also, in my story- and yes it is a "story" there is no one who is really interested in or connected to the kids, and that is plausible. I know because I worked in CPS for a lot of years and have experience dealing with the court system.
> ...


So sorry that you're shocked.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 30, 2017)

What Boss said  

Hey Boss, what's your opinion on two adults having a contract involving kids that banishes those children from either a mother or father for life?


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 30, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I have a  simple question for those who oppose same sex marriage   on the grounds that it is detrimental to children - which will come at the end of this post.  But first allow me to present a senerio that is quite common.
> 
> The setting: A time and place where same sex marriage is not possible and only married couples can   adopt .
> 
> ...



To me, Jack is the key

Unless he has given up his parental rights, He gets to decide what happens to the children


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> What Boss said
> 
> Hey Boss, what's your opinion on two adults having a contract involving kids that banishes those children from either a mother or father for life?



By a 2:1 ratio Americans believe in legal same gender marriage
(of course this is not a real scientific poll- but since Silhouette likes to pretend her polls here are- and then pretends that they say something other than what they say- here it is


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Well, good for them, but it does not mean that it would play out that way in all cases. Courts and CPS people are fickle and have their biases. Also, in my story- and yes it is a "story" there is no one who is really interested in or connected to the kids, and that is plausible. I know because I worked in CPS for a lot of years and have experience dealing with the court system.
> ...



And if the best parent or parents for the child are gay- then that is what the courts and the CPS should decide. 

And if the best parent or parents arent' gay- then that is what the courts and the CPS should decide.

Really the sexual orientation is rather irrelevant unless it is linked to other irresponsibility


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 30, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Really the sexual orientation is rather irrelevant unless it is linked to other irresponsibility


It should be irrelevant , but there are no guarantees.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Really the sexual orientation is rather irrelevant unless it is linked to other irresponsibility
> ...


Most of all of should be irrelevant


----------



## Peach (Nov 30, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I have a  simple question for those who oppose same sex marriage   on the grounds that it is detrimental to children - which will come at the end of this post.  But first allow me to present a senerio that is quite common.
> 
> The setting: A time and place where same sex marriage is not possible and only married couples can   adopt .
> 
> ...



Yes, so they are legally bound, and Angela can raise Kathy's children. (If dad cared, where was he when Angela was alive?)


----------



## Boss (Nov 30, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Really the sexual orientation is rather irrelevant unless it is linked to other irresponsibility
> ...



The only guarantee should be what is best for the child. The existence or non existence of a "marriage" should have NOTHING to do with it whatsoever. For you to argue that SHOULD be a criteria demonstrates your complete lack of concern for the child. This is about you pushing a social agenda and exploiting children to do so. What a despicable and disgusting display of human garbage. Make your inane argument for gay marriage some other way, don't exploit children to do so, you low life piece of dog shit.


----------



## Boss (Nov 30, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> To me, Jack is the key
> 
> Unless he has given up his parental rights, He gets to decide what happens to the children



NO! Here is the key: *What is in the best interest of the child!* PERIOD, END OF DEBATE! 

No one _OWNS_ the children!


----------



## Boss (Nov 30, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> What Boss said
> 
> Hey Boss, what's your opinion on two adults having a contract involving kids that banishes those children from either a mother or father for life?



I don't understand the question. I don't believe ANY contract should ever trump what is the best possible option for the children. They are not material possessions!


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Why are you such a fucking lying asshole?

The only guarantee should be what is best for the child. The existence or non existence of a "marriage" should have NOTHING to do with it whatsoever. For you to argue that SHOULD be a criteria demonstrates your complete lack of concern for the child. This is about you pushing a social agenda and exploiting children to do so. What a despicable and disgusting display of human garbage. Make your inane argument for straight marriage some other way, don't exploit children to do so, you low life piece of dog shit.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 30, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 30, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> What Boss said
> 
> Hey Boss, what's your opinion on two adults having a contract involving kids that banishes those children from either a mother or father for life?





Boss said:


> I don't understand the question. I don't believe ANY contract should ever trump what is the best possible option for the children. They are not material possessions!


Any gay marriage contract carries with it upon its face that any children involved will be banished from either a mother or father for life.  Singles or unmarrieds do not have such contracts, having the possibility of the missing gender to join the family.  Gay marriage is a contractual bind for life.  The Infancy Doctrine forbids a contract that implicitly involves or anticipates children which contains terms that banish them from a necessity.


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 30, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I have a  simple question for those who oppose same sex marriage   on the grounds that it is detrimental to children - which will come at the end of this post.  But first allow me to present a senerio that is quite common.
> 
> The setting: A time and place where same sex marriage is not possible and only married couples can   adopt .
> 
> ...



Yes and No ProgressivePatriot

Anyone can get married as a spiritual and/or religious practice that govt can neither establish or prohibit,
by the First Amendment.

If a state doesn't pass LGBT friendly marriage laws by consent of their citizens,
then either "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships"
can be passed to accommodate all partnerships equally
even if the citizens don't all agree on "marriage beliefs."

In general, PP, this case you post shows
WHY YOU SHOULD NEVER RELY ON GOVT TO DECIDE RIGHTS AND BENEFITS,
ESPECIALLY NOT ON COURTS AND JUDGES WHERE BELIEFS ARE RELATIVE

Due to conflicting beliefs, which cannot be regulated or mandated by govt,
people do NOT agree on laws on marriage, benefits and related social issues,

Since we KNOW there are conflicts in beliefs, this is why it may be better
to set up Benefits and terms of marriage by Party, to manage collectively
for Members of the same beliefs. And keep the government's authority reserved for just NEUTRAL financial and legal partnerships, which do not specify social relationships.
(Again, "civil unions and domestic partnerships" could be agreed upon as neutral,
while keeping terms of "marriage" and "social benefits" separate by party membership
to prevent people from imposing or infringing on each other's conflicting beliefs.)

The govt could then enforce agreed contracts on
guardianship, custody, estates, medical directives, and other legal arrangements
while remaining VOID of references to marriage or social beliefs where people don't agree.

Your story is exactly why you would want to keep govt out of social relationships,
so enforcing basic contracts remains objective and neutral, not biased by beliefs!

The govt should NEVER be abused to dictate or decide people's social lives and personal decisions!
So organize marriages and benefits collectively through one's own choice of
churches, parties or other organizations where members agree on the same
policies and terms. Don't do this through "govt" which has to represent
ALL OTHER PEOPLE OF ALL OTHER BELIEFS.

If you TRULY want to defend your own beliefs and rights to free exercise of them,
that's why people manage their own membership programs through churches
and other private organizations, including parties.  So you retain full say and control
WITHOUT INTERFERENCE BY GOVT, SINCE THESE ARE YOUR BELIEFS.

So YES the couple has inalienable free exercise of religion, beliefs and creed
including the right to marry as a practice and expression by that freedom.
And the best way to DEFEND free exercise of religion and beliefs
is not to compromise it by handing it over to government to regulate for you!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 1, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > What Boss said
> ...


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 1, 2017)

Any gay marriage contract carries with it upon its face that any children involved will be banished from either a mother or father for life.  Singles or unmarrieds do not have such contracts, having the possibility of the missing gender to join the family.  Gay marriage is a contractual bind for life.  The Infancy Doctrine forbids a contract that implicitly involves or anticipates children which contains terms that banish them from a necessity.
View attachment 163750
Is that picture the argument that LGBT lawyers intend to present as the entirety of their case?  Might want to dig a little deeper into the Infancy Doctrine than that.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Dec 1, 2017)

Snouter said:


> The same sex marriage argument is INSANE.  This idiotic thread confirms it.
> 
> The only reason for same sex marriage is to insult the parents and tweak the IRS system to get inheritance in addition to the diabolical effort to fuck up children in their custody.




The right always wants bigger and more invasive government. 

The left want govt out of our private lives. 

A lot of problems would be solved if the right would just mind their own business. 


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Dec 1, 2017)

Marion Morrison said:


> Faggotry confuses children. In the old days, they got hung. I'm thinking Jefferson advocated for being too easy on them.
> I care about the kids, and they shouldn't be exposed to your faggotry. TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Kids come from God.
> ...




BS

And just plain stupid. 


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Dec 1, 2017)

GreenBean said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...




I’m sure that’s true. 

Anathema posted that he buys cheap televisions because he throws heavy objects through the screen. 

Froot loop and violent. Nasty and dangerous combination. 


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Rambunctious (Dec 1, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I have a  simple question for those who oppose same sex marriage   on the grounds that it is detrimental to children - which will come at the end of this post.  But first allow me to present a senerio that is quite common.
> 
> The setting: A time and place where same sex marriage is not possible and only married couples can   adopt .
> 
> ...


Will you please take your fag issues and shove em. The world does not revolve around your sexual predilections. Sickening.


----------



## Anathema (Dec 1, 2017)

GreenBean said:


> So I guess you were never a kid - born as a grumpy Old Man ?



Pretty much. Then again, those of us born with birth defects rarely get to be children. We get to grow up very quickly. Add to thst the fact that by 12 or 13 years old I preferred to hang out with the adults due to the immaturity of my peers,  and basically I had no childhood.


----------



## Anathema (Dec 1, 2017)

Luddly Neddite said:


> I’m sure that’s true.
> 
> Anathema posted that he buys cheap televisions because he throws heavy objects through the screen.
> 
> Froot loop and violent. Nasty and dangerous combination.



Lost another one last night, actually. If people would just smarten up and do things my way it would be so much easier on everyone.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 1, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> Will you please take your fag issues and shove em. The world does not revolve around your sexual predilections. Sickening.



You have to understand that the OP has an ulterior motive for starting this thread.  See, the LGBT cult, which actively cooperates the sculpting of their image online, has launched into new legal territory here, where they are intending to have another Judicial-legislation at the expense of 300 million.  They're trying to have a handful of judges tell society now that they can use a contract that bans children from either a father or mother for life, to force adoption agencies to disgorge disadvantaged children into that midst.  Dumont v Lyons 2017 : Will Fathers (or Mothers) Be Judicially-Legislated Into Irrelevance?

The fact that most child predators prey on disadvantaged children that nobody wants is probably just pure coincidence............I'm sure it has nothing whatsoever to do with the real motivation behind the last judicial-legislative act that forced all 50 states to validate so-called "gay marriage": an illegal contract (children involved implicitly with contracts can never have those terms ban them from a necessity for life)


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 1, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I have a  simple question for those who oppose same sex marriage   on the grounds that it is detrimental to children - which will come at the end of this post.  But first allow me to present a senerio that is quite common.
> ...


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 1, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> Anyone can get married as a spiritual and/or religious practice that govt can neither establish or prohibit,
> by the First Amendment.
> 
> If a state doesn't pass LGBT friendly marriage laws by consent of their citizens,
> ...


1)    *The citizen do not have the right to consent or not consent on a matter of constitutional rights. 
*

*2 )I have documented the folly of civil unions many times. It is a cruel hoax to portray it as equal to marriage, just like  claiming that  being allowed to ride in the back of the bus was equal  to riding in front  because you could still get to where you were going.*


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 1, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> In general, PP, this case you post shows
> WHY YOU SHOULD NEVER RELY ON GOVT TO DECIDE RIGHTS AND BENEFITS,
> ESPECIALLY NOT ON COURTS AND JUDGES WHERE BELIEFS ARE RELATIVE


*Baloney!! That is exactly what we should be relying on government to do. It is what government does. Have you ever read the constitution?? Does  Equal protection  under the law  sound familiar? All beliefs cannot and should not be accommodated when some beliefs support oppression and discrimination*


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 1, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> Due to conflicting beliefs, which cannot be regulated or mandated by govt,
> people do NOT agree on laws on marriage, benefits and related social issues,


*Beliefs cannot be mandated by government, but behavior can be and must be* *to protect the vulnerable* *and minorities*


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 1, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> Since we KNOW there are conflicts in beliefs, this is why it may be better
> to set up Benefits and terms of marriage by Party, to manage collectively
> for Members of the same beliefs. And keep the government's authority reserved for just NEUTRAL financial and legal partnerships, which do not specify social relationships.
> (Again, "civil unions and domestic partnerships" could be agreed upon as neutral,
> ...


*More gibberish*. *We have been all through this before. You are advocation for parallel systems and a neutral government to somehow accommodate everyone, Beyond absurd! *


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 1, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> Your story is exactly why you would want to keep govt out of social relationships,
> so enforcing basic contracts remains objective and neutral, not biased by beliefs!
> 
> The govt should NEVER be abused to dictate or decide people's social lives and personal decisions!


*Exactly! That is why the government had no business in dictating that couples of the same sex could not marry while those of the opposite sex could. But the government is not involved in social relationships. It is involved in legal relationships as it should be. People make a choice regarding their social relationships and government honors those choices on an equal basis. *


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 1, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> So organize marriages and benefits collectively through one's own choice of
> churches, parties or other organizations where members agree on the same
> policies and terms. Don't do this through "govt" which has to represent
> ALL OTHER PEOPLE OF ALL OTHER BELIEFS.


*More of the same nonsense. The government out of marriage meme intended to avoid the marriage issue and  that nobody has ever been able to explain how it would actually work in the real world . Just who would support this “throw the baby out with the bath water” extreme and unnecessary “solution”? Certainly not the millions of married couples who benefit from legal marriage*


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 1, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> If you TRULY want to defend your own beliefs and rights to free exercise of them,
> that's why people manage their own membership programs through churches
> and other private organizations, including parties. So you retain full say and control
> WITHOUT INTERFERENCE BY GOVT, SINCE THESE ARE YOUR BELIEFS.
> ...


*You’re an anarchist!!  In your world, you want everyone to be able to do their own thing, but without government there to ensure that those with competing and opposing beliefs would not infringe on others who they disagree with. Can you not see that eventually one side will gain the upper hand and impose those beliefs on the other? You want to accommodate the bigots and theocrats and naively   believe  that  they will allow the gays to live as they wish in peace. However, it is not just the issue of  legal marriage. Many do not want any recognition of same sex unions at all. And there are many other areas of potential discrimination in the absence of government supervision- housing, employment, and public accommodation to name a few. Hell, some of these people don’t even think that gay folks should be allowed to live. You are advocating social Darwinism. *


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 1, 2017)

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > To me, Jack is the key
> ...



Yes they do

The biological parents own the children and get to decide what is best for them

In this case, the non-custodial parent would be next in line to decide what is best for the child BEFORE a new spouse would


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 1, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> 1)    *The citizen do not have the right to consent or not consent on a matter of constitutional rights.
> *
> 
> *2 )I have documented the folly of civil unions many times. It is a cruel hoax to portray it as equal to marriage, just like  claiming that  being allowed to ride in the back of the bus was equal  to riding in front  because you could still get to where you were going.*



  It is certainly at least equally a cruel and destructive hoax to declare that a sick homosexual mockery of a marriage is in any way comparable to a genuine marriage, and especially to allow children to be adopted into that mockery, and told that it is in any way comparable to giving them a real family with a father and a mother.

  But then, you will not agree, because you are on the side that overtly seeks to abuse and harm children, in order to promote your evil homosexual-and-worse agenda.

Luke 11:11-12
_
11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?_​


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 1, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > So organize marriages and benefits collectively through one's own choice of
> ...



So what is a Government sanctioned marriage?

What qualifies other then two signatures on a 10 cent piece of paper?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 1, 2017)

Pop23 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


Makes it legal and binding


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 1, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



That's typically what all legal document do. But what does it make legal and binding?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 1, 2017)

Pop23 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



The relationship
They cannot legally enter into another legal relationship unless legally dissolved

It also provides all the legal protections of a marriage including financial, tax, medical, rights to joint property


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 1, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Then no one should be excluded from these protections? If so, why?

There must be a reason, Right?


----------



## Rambunctious (Dec 1, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


Single minded morons with a sick sexual fetish should not call others stupid.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 1, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> The relationship
> *They cannot legally enter into another legal relationship unless legally dissolved
> 
> It also provides all the legal protections of a marriage including financial, tax, medical, rights to joint property*


And custody of children.  Thank you.  Yes.  Marriage is a contract without a fraction of doubt; involving anticipated children (whether or not they arrive) without a fraction of a doubt.   And, so-called "gay marriage" is a contract that banishes any children involved from either a mother or father for life.  That is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine on children in actual or implicit contract with adults where a necessity is deprived.

Single parents posses NO contract that banishes children in this way.  In fact they still offer hope, particularly with the enticement of state benefits geared precisely to provide these vital fathers to boys and mothers to girls.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 1, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rambunctious said:
> ...


"Single minded""

The fact that you presume to know something about my sexuality based on my politics is more than enough to confirm my assessment of you,


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 1, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


They have parental rights. You can't own a human being , not even when they are your offspring. Ownership of a human being was over with the civil war. 

That being said, parental right- like all rights are not absolute . You must exercise those rights responsibly and within certain limits. 

In this case, the father was a jackass who could care less about the children. He refused to take them in after their mothers death, was negligent in paying support, and did not visit with them much. The right decision would be to terminate his parental rights if he does not surrender them voluntarily in favor of Ange so that she can adopt them.  Had the women been married, and  this been done before the mothers death, the children would not be in danger of becoming wards of the state.

While they may be allowed to stay with Angela,  a biased CPS official might not make that recommendation, and/ or a bigoted judge might not make the right decision.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 1, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The relationship
> ...


Still trying to sell that failed argument?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 1, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Until such time as his parental rights are surrendered or taken away, he has control over his children

The spouse in a second marriage would not


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 1, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


OK that's what I said


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 1, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Any gay marriage contract carries with it upon its face that any children involved will be banished from either a mother or father for life. t.



As is the case with virtually all of Silhouettes posts - here entire sentence is a figment of her imagination.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 1, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I have a  simple question for those who oppose same sex marriage   on the grounds that it is detrimental to children - which will come at the end of this post.  But first allow me to present a senerio that is quite common.
> ...



Poor little snowflake. When confronted with a question too complicated for your little mind- you just lash out. 

LOL


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 1, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> > Will you please take your fag issues and shove em. The world does not revolve around your sexual predilections. Sickening.
> ...







Coming from the author of scores of threads attacking gays and gay marriage- lol


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 1, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Since we KNOW there are conflicts in beliefs, this is why it may be better
> ...



You actually read that stuff?

I have tried a few times- and actually challenged her to right a succinct post. 

She can't- I won't bother to try to decode her posts.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 1, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The relationship
> ...



And by 'without a fraction of a doubt' that really means 'without a fraction of truth'


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 1, 2017)

Anathema said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > I’m sure that’s true.
> ...


Hey, it isn't our fault your football team sucks rocks, dude.  Maybe they should have tried to trade for Jimmy G.  Your way sucks, try The Patriots Way.


----------



## Rambunctious (Dec 1, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Rambunctious said:
> ...


You got me all wrong...LOL I just have had a gut full of it. Get your sex life out of my face...that's all nothing other than that.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 2, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


It was hard, but I took the challenge  knowing that she's a crackpot.  It has now been almost a day and no response. I don't expect anything but more of the same .


----------



## Boss (Dec 2, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



No they don't. People are not property (see 13th Amendment). Children are taken from their biological parents every single day.


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 2, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Of course we will have to take you’re word for it. For all we know you’re closteded. There is no DNA test for homosexuality after all, and it appears you spend an incredible amount of time on the subject.


----------



## Boss (Dec 2, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



"Marriage" would have nothing to do with anything. CPS would recommend and a court would order based on ONE criteria alone... WHAT. IS. BEST. FOR. THE. CHILD.  PERIOD! 

This has nothing to do with marital contracts or even parental rights. Consideration would weigh heavily on where the child resided, where is "home?" If the child is old enough, (usually 12 or older), consideration may be weighted toward what the child prefers. Consideration may also be made on the basis of who could best provide for the child but this consideration doesn't take precedent unless there is a compelling reason. 

Again, there is no "guarantee in all cases" when it comes to custody of a child. The two of you are lobbying for that to be made the case and it is absolutely deplorable. What is in the *best interest of the child* should ALWAYS be the sole guarantee.


----------



## BlackSand (Dec 2, 2017)

Simple answer ... Marriage (same sex or otherwise) shouldn't be any of the government's business in the first place.

If straight people want to be upset about same sex marriage laws ...
Or if homosexuals want to be upset about inequality under the law ...

... You ignorant twats shouldn't have ever left it up to the government to start with ... 

.


----------



## WinterBorn (Dec 2, 2017)

BlackSand said:


> Simple answer ... Marriage (same sex or otherwise) shouldn't be any of the government's business in the first place.
> 
> If straight people want to be upset about same sex marriage laws ...
> Or if homosexuals want to be upset about inequality under the law ...
> ...



THIS!!!!   Why do we ask for gov't permission (and pay them for it) to marry?


----------



## Boss (Dec 2, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The government out of marriage meme intended to avoid the marriage issue and that nobody has ever been able to explain how it would actually work in the real world .



Here's how it would work... Regarding any situation where we currently discern based on marriage, (contracts, insurance, inheritance, taxation, visitation, etc.) the distinction would be replaced by recognition of civil unions instead of marriage. It's not a "back seat of the bus" argument because everyone would be subject to the *same* criteria going forward. There would be *no* inequality. You are simply removing "marriage" from official sanction of government. This actually benefits gay couples as well as people in platonic relationships or unique arrangements where sexuality is not a factor. There are many domestic partners who are not sexual and maintain a partnership for convenience. Civil unions would allow them to enjoy the same benefits currently "married" couples now enjoy and there would be no presupposition regarding sexuality or sexual behavior. 

Personally, I don't believe there should be any governmental advantage or benefit for "married" couples or any other domestic partnership. Taxes should be the same for all. That said, there are instances where legal instruments require such distinction and there is no reason this couldn't be transitioned to civil union partnerships from traditional marriage.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 2, 2017)

Boss said:


> Personally, I don't believe there should be any governmental advantage or benefit for "married" couples or any other domestic partnership. Taxes should be the same for all. That said, there are instances where legal instruments require such distinction and there is no reason this couldn't be transitioned to civil union partnerships from traditional marriage.



The reasons states used to give benefits to men and women to marry was to secure the best possible child-raising environment for their future citizens.  For them the money (and the studies behind it) made sense. States knew and know that a father/mother home for at least the duration until the children are emancipated was the best possible home to whelp future citizens that are productive, less depressed, less addicted, better educated...the list goes on and on...Banishment from this vital home-cocktail is Machiavellian. 

Now states are forced to pay for contracts that do the exact opposite of that: banish children from either a mother or father for life.  Why this was not discussed at Obergefell is an insidious mystery since many lawyers knew this would be the case, and stayed silent about it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 2, 2017)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The government out of marriage meme intended to avoid the marriage issue and that nobody has ever been able to explain how it would actually work in the real world .
> ...



Sure Bossman,  destroy marriage for absolutely no good reason  other than because a few  bigots and anti government fanatics don’t like it  .  Here is an interesting piece that will shed some light on the subject.


Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/can-government-get-out-of-the-marriage-business/


Selected excerpts with notations where needed:




> In the debate last night, *Ron Paul* noted his position on marriage as follows:
> 
> get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.




The Church? Really? Where does that leave people who are not religious or who just do not want to get married in a church?  Will we then be discriminating against those people on the basis of religion? What are the implications for government benefits and the government’s role in mediating divorces? . Shall that be left too Jewish, Sharia or Cannon law? Not very well thought out. 




> Here’s the deal:  much of the significance of marriage *is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition.*  Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds.  There is  little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example).





> However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship).  Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.).





> Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system.






> *To put it as simply as possible:  for government to truly get out of the marriage business it would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing.*





> This is because to recognize that relationship as having specific legal significances it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up to legal scrutiny (to, for example, stop people from arbitrarily claiming whatever privileges might exist for married couples).  Such a stand would have to exist whether the government issued the licenses or not.  Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is, by definition, in the “marriage business.”



*To summarize the summary:  the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.*


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 2, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Sure Bossman,  destroy marriage for absolutely no good reason  other than because a few  bigots and anti government fanatics don’t like it  .



Well the states no longer get what they pay for.  The states paid benefits to men and women to marry to get fathers and mothers stabilized in children's lives to produce the best citizens who are not statistically prone to drug abuse, depression,crime, indigence and filling the prisons.  Hundreds if not thousands of studies show boys without fathers or girls without mothers grow up disadvantaged & susceptible...no matter how many imposters try to fill those rolls.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 2, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I don't believe there should be any governmental advantage or benefit for "married" couples or any other domestic partnership. Taxes should be the same for all. That said, there are instances where legal instruments require such distinction and there is no reason this couldn't be transitioned to civil union partnerships from traditional marriage.
> ...


States do not pay anybody to get married. Marriage allows couple to file a joint  state and federal  return and may be able to reduce their tax liability -but no guarantee. PEOPLE are given a credit for  children  regardless of whether those children are cared for by a straight couple , a gay couple or a single person.

And you are still blathering senselessly about what children need while still not providing ant evidence from a credible source


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 2, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Hundreds if not thousands of studies show boys without fathers or girls without mothers grow up disadvantaged & susceptible...no matter how many imposters try to fill those rolls.


Let see a study that  compares children from a single parent home with those from a same sex couple home.  Then lets see one that rates the well being of children in two parent homes while controlling  for  same sex parents as an intervening variable.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 2, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Well the states no longer get what they pay for.  The states paid benefits to men and women to marry to get fathers and mothers stabilized in children's lives to produce the best citizens who are not statistically prone to drug abuse, depression,crime, indigence and filling the prisons.  Hundreds if not thousands of studies show boys without fathers or girls without mothers grow up disadvantaged & susceptible...no matter how many imposters try to fill those rolls.



  It's not just that boys need fathers and girls need mothers.  All children need both parents—a father and a mother.  As a boy, I needed my father to show me how to be a man, and I needed my mother to show me what to expect in a woman.  I needed both of them to show me how a marriage works, so that I can know how to relate to my own wife and my own marriage.

  Even among children who grow up in less-than-ideal settings, the vast majority are going to grow up to be hetersexual; they are going to want to marry, and they are going to want to raise a family.  Being raised in a proper family, with a father and a mother who are married to each other, and who treat their marriage and their relationship with the sacredness that is deserves, is essential to knowing how to go about it.

  Children who are deprived either of a father or of a mother are at a significant disadvantage, as are children whose parents fail to fulfill their marital responsibilities toward one another.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 2, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I don't believe there should be any governmental advantage or benefit for "married" couples or any other domestic partnership. Taxes should be the same for all. That said, there are instances where legal instruments require such distinction and there is no reason this couldn't be transitioned to civil union partnerships from traditional marriage.
> ...


124 Words From Justice Kennedy's Majority Opinion On Marriage To Remember Forever

Today's 5-4 decision in _Obergefell v. Hodges_ will likely be studies by legal scholars for centuries. The crazed rantings of Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia notwithstanding, the decision is a fascinating read.

Here is just one passage:



> *A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children* and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See,
> _e.g., Pierce_
> v.
> _Society of Sisters_
> , 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and pre-dictability 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. See*


_Windsor_
,


> _supra,_
> at ___. 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.




Now shut the hell up about children and how much you care about them.!!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 2, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I don't believe there should be any governmental advantage or benefit for "married" couples or any other domestic partnership. Taxes should be the same for all. That said, there are instances where legal instruments require such distinction and there is no reason this couldn't be transitioned to civil union partnerships from traditional marriage.
> ...






> U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, §
> No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.





> OHIO CONST. art. XV, § 11 Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage



See the problem?? Here is more from the brief




> *The Petitioners, their children, and many like them have waited too long already.* Ohio widowers James Obergefell and David Michener ran out of time when death took their spouses. The infants born to the Henry-Rogers, Yorksmith, and NoeMcCracken families could not wait to arrive in this world until a majority voted that their parents‘ marriages would be honored. And Adopted Baby Doe could not wait for a home until a majority of Ohioans chose to recognize the marriage of his New York adoptive fathers. *No more children should be demeaned by states like Ohio; no more loving spouses should die without the dignity that accompanies  respect for their marriages, while the democratic process grinds its slow way towards justice. *Following in the path of U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Windsor , which held that guarantees of liberty and equality prohibit the federal government from demeaning the dignity and integrity of the families of married same-sex spouses, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2695-96 (2013), this Court should declare the Ohio bans on marriage recognition unconstitutional.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 2, 2017)

Yes the Justices were unaware at the time of the Infancy Doctrine and its prohibitions on contracts that adults implicitly share with children.  So, with ignorance abounding, they found for Obergefell.  That will be overturned on any of a host of fundamental flaws.  Enjoy forced-gay marriage on states while it lasts.  If I were a gay person looking to get "legally married", I'd still do so only in a state that originally enacted it in the first place.  I wouldn't do it in California for example, where gay marriage is still not legal in their Constitution to this day.

So I'll repeat this warning to you:  Your lawyers have to demonstrate and get written into judicial-legislation (ahem) that fathers and mothers are not psychological necessities to children, or face defeat via the Infancy Doctrine.  You CERTAINLY cannot argue with a straight face that marriage isn't a contract, or "isn't a contract that implicitly anticipates children".  Your best bet is to argue that fathers and mothers aren't important psychological necessities to children.  That's the only area where you could potentially find a micron of wiggle room to do your creative false-premise style arguing.


----------



## Boss (Dec 2, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



No. It's YOU who wants to destroy marriage and you want to use the power of government to do it. I am in favor of individual liberty and allowing marriage to be defined by the individual and their clergy. I believe marriage is an important cornerstone to civilized society and family structure and this is what Socialists such as yourself seek to destroy through power of the state over the individual. 

What you fail to understand (or maybe you do understand) is that when you cede this authority to the government, they can determine whatever parameters they deem best and you have no control over that. So, in the future, they may determine marriage is only suitable for heterosexuals, or white people with blond hair and blue eyes, or Christians, or maybe "marriage" can include pedophiles and necrophiliacs? You've ceded that power to the government and it no longer belongs to you, the individual. 

As I said, there is no reason we couldn't simply replace "marriage" with civil union contracts, with regard to governmental recognition. This would return "marriage" to the individual and remove it from government sanction forever. That is the only position that guarantees individual liberty. But you don't give one solitary shit about individual liberty OR gay rights... this is about government power over the people, because you're a Socialist.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 2, 2017)

Boss said:


> So, in the future, they may determine marriage is only suitable for heterosexuals, or white people with blond hair and blue eyes, or Christians, or maybe "marriage" can include pedophiles and necrophiliacs?


And there in lies the problem. I will sooner trust the government and the constitution to guard against these extremes that the crazy fuckers out there who actually believe this shit


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 2, 2017)

Boss said:


> I believe marriage is an important cornerstone to civilized society and family structure and this is what Socialists such as yourself seek to destroy through power of the state over the individual.


No you don't. You want to do away with marriage as we know it. You want a system in which there is no legal distinction - and no benefits - fir being married vs. not married. YOU said so. ! Are you crazy!!??


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 2, 2017)

Boss said:


> As I said, there is no reason we couldn't simply replace "marriage" with civil union contracts, with regard to governmental recognition. This would return "marriage" to the individual and remove it from government sanction forever.


And I documented the reasons why we can't


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 2, 2017)

Boss said:


> That is the only position that guarantees individual liberty. But you don't give one solitary shit about individual liberty OR gay rights... this is about government power over the people, because you're a Socialist.


Individual liberty in the absence of a legal framework that sets parameters and limits on that liberty is anarchy. Is that what you are? An anarchist?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 2, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Yes the Justices were unaware at the time of the Infancy Doctrine and its prohibitions on contracts that adults implicitly share with children.  So, with ignorance abounding, they found for Obergefell.  That will be overturned on any of a host of fundamental flaws.  Enjoy forced-gay marriage on states while it lasts.  If I were a gay person looking to get "legally married", I'd still do so only in a state that originally enacted it in the first place.  I wouldn't do it in California for example, where gay marriage is still not legal in their Constitution to this day.
> 
> So I'll repeat this warning to you:  Your lawyers have to demonstrate and get written into judicial-legislation (ahem) that fathers and mothers are not psychological necessities to children, or face defeat via the Infancy Doctrine.  You CERTAINLY cannot argue with a straight face that marriage isn't a contract, or "isn't a contract that implicitly anticipates children".  Your best bet is to argue that fathers and mothers aren't important psychological necessities to children.  That's the only area where you could potentially find a micron of wiggle room to do your creative false-premise style arguing.










Give it a fucking rest!!


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 2, 2017)

Yes the Justices were unaware at the time of the Infancy Doctrine and its prohibitions on contracts that adults implicitly share with children.  So, with ignorance abounding, they found for Obergefell.  That will be overturned on any of a host of fundamental flaws.  Enjoy forced-gay marriage on states while it lasts.  If I were a gay person looking to get "legally married", I'd still do so only in a state that originally enacted it in the first place.  I wouldn't do it in California for example, where gay marriage is still not legal in their Constitution to this day.

So I'll repeat this warning to you:  Your lawyers have to demonstrate and get written into judicial-legislation (ahem) that fathers and mothers are not psychological necessities to children, or face defeat via the Infancy Doctrine.  You CERTAINLY cannot argue with a straight face that marriage isn't a contract, or "isn't a contract that implicitly anticipates children".  Your best bet is to argue that fathers and mothers aren't important psychological necessities to children.  That's the only area where you could potentially find a micron of wiggle room to do your creative false-premise style arguing.



> Give it a fucking rest!!



No, I won't.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 3, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I have a  simple question for those who oppose same sex marriage   on the grounds that it is detrimental to children - which will come at the end of this post.  But first allow me to present a senerio that is quite common.
> 
> The setting: A time and place where same sex marriage is not possible and only married couples can   adopt .
> 
> ...



Leaving children at the mercy of the state is never in their best interests, and I have to wonder why their mother, whose responsibility it was to look out for their best interests, did not make arrangements to prevent this.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 3, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I don't believe there should be any governmental advantage or benefit for "married" couples or any other domestic partnership. Taxes should be the same for all. That said, there are instances where legal instruments require such distinction and there is no reason this couldn't be transitioned to civil union partnerships from traditional marriage.
> ...



Thats what you keep saying- even though the evidence shows otherwise.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 3, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sure Bossman,  destroy marriage for absolutely no good reason  other than because a few  bigots and anti government fanatics don’t like it  .
> ...



Except of course- that is not what the State does. 

At all.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 3, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Yes the Justices were unaware at the time of the Infancy Doctrine and its prohibitions on contracts



LOL- the Justices of the Supreme Court was 'unaware of the Infancy Doctrine'?

Do you not realize how insane that sounds? Of course you don't.

You are arguing that 9 of the top legal experts in the United States- don't know of this 'doctrine'- but you do?

Think about that. 

What law school did you go to again?


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 3, 2017)

Cecilie1200 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I have a  simple question for those who oppose same sex marriage   on the grounds that it is detrimental to children - which will come at the end of this post.  But first allow me to present a senerio that is quite common.
> ...



Unfortunately some mom's don't have other family to rely upon. And the answer is that Kathy should have gone to the legal steps to name Angela as their guardian.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 3, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> , or face defeat via the Infancy Doctrine. !


.[/QUOTE]
LOL

Not the dreaded Infancy Doctrine!

The one the Supreme Court Justices don't even know about!

The horror!


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 3, 2017)

I have a feeling they're going to know about it pretty soon.  It's an easy oversight to make.  Not all lawyers are scholars on children's legal issues in case law.  It's an obscure area of focus in law.  All it takes is a nice brief to remind them.  No worries.  Better late than never.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 4, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Yes the Justices were unaware at the time of the Infancy Doctrine and its prohibitions on contracts
> ...


I wish that one of the lawyers trying to defend a state's bigoted ban on same sex marriage invoked the Infancy Doctrine. Even Scalia and Thomas would have laughed !


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 4, 2017)

Yeah. Scalia laughed so hard about Obergefell that he died.

Scalia wasn't a children's legal issues expert. None of them are on the USSC. But they can be briefed by those who are scholars on the Infancy Doctrine.

The question of Dumont v Lyon will render down to "Are the rights , needs & liberties of children dominant; or are the "rights" needs & liberties of deviant sex addict adults dominant?"


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 4, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Yeah. Scalia laughed so hard about Obergefell that he died.
> 
> Scalia wasn't a children's legal issues expert. None of them are on the USSC. But they can be briefed by those who are scholars on the Infancy Doctrine.
> 
> The question of Dumont v Lyon will render down to "Are the rights , needs & liberties of children dominant; or are the "rights" needs & liberties of deviant sex addict adults dominant?"


More horseshit that you pulled out of your pie hole. Dumont v Lyons is  about religious discrimination and exclusion in adoption based on sexual orientation. It's is not about "contracts" or the fitness of same sex couples to adopt.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 4, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Yeah. Scalia laughed so hard about Obergefell that he died.
> 
> Scalia wasn't a children's legal issues expert. None of them are on the USSC. But they can be briefed by those who are scholars on the Infancy Doctrine.
> 
> The question of Dumont v Lyon will render down to "Are the rights , needs & liberties of children dominant; or are the "rights" needs & liberties of deviant sex addict adults dominant?"





TheProgressivePatriot said:


> More horseshit that you pulled out of your pie hole. Dumont v Lyons is  about religious discrimination and exclusion in adoption based on sexual orientation. It's is not about "contracts" or the fitness of same sex couples to adopt.


Have you studied the Infancy Doctrine and understand that it is a doctrine about protecting children from adults exploiting their rights to protection, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?  That is what the Doctrine is about at its core and its whole.  Might be worth you taking a look into it before you accuse people debating its contents of "pulling it out of their hole". I think your protests about my discussion of it is pulling it out of your hole actually.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 4, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. Scalia laughed so hard about Obergefell that he died.
> ...



The Infancy Doctrine says that children can void a contract that an adult signed them up for. 

The infancy Doctrine does not prevent any adults from entering into any contracts- ever- for anything. 

You just lie.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 4, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Yeah. Scalia laughed so hard about Obergefell that he died.
> 
> Scalia wasn't a children's legal issues expert. None of them are on the USSC. But they can be briefed by those who are scholars on the Infancy Doctrine.



You are absolutely delusional. 

You think that you know more about the law- than the Supreme Court Justices. 

Hell you think you know more about the law than Antonin Scalia did- who I disagreed with his legal philosophies- but would never doubt his legal expertise.

What law school did you go to again?


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 4, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> I have a feeling they're going to know about it pretty soon.  It's an easy oversight to make.  Not all lawyers are scholars on children's legal issues in case law.  It's an obscure area of focus in law.  All it takes is a nice brief to remind them.  No worries.  Better late than never.



So obscure that no lawyer knows about it- but you do. 

Perhaps you can lecture about it at the law school you graduated from?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 4, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. Scalia laughed so hard about Obergefell that he died.
> ...


 
I'll just point out one problem- of many that there are with your blather. EVEN IF the infancy doctrine were relevant-which it is not- Neither you nor anyone else has been able to demonstrate that same sex marriage  or having two parents of the  same sex is harmful. That is why the bigots lost the marriage debate and why we are allowing gays to adopt in every state.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 4, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> I have a feeling they're going to know about it pretty soon.  It's an easy oversight to make.  Not all lawyers are scholars on children's legal issues in case law.  It's an obscure area of focus in law.  All it takes is a nice brief to remind them.  No worries.  Better late than never.


You might want to consider this before you continue to embarrass yourself  with your stupid ass blather:

*Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage, and child rearing by gays will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda. If there was a body of credible evidence to show that having gay parents was in any way detrimental to children, this would not be necessary!*

Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court  2.22.14  Selected excerpts follow….the full article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/us/opponents-of-same-sex-marriage-take-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0



> Scholars testifying in defense of Michigan’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage aim to sow doubt about the wisdom of change. They brandish a few sharply disputed recent studies —* the fruits of a concerted and expensive effort by conservatives to sponsor research by sympathetic scholars — to suggest that children of same-sex couples do not fare as well as those raised by married heterosexuals*.





> That view will be challenged in court by longtime scholars in the field, *backed by major professional organizations, who call those studies fatally flawed*. These scholars will describe a near consensus that, other factors like income and stability being equal, children of same-sex couples do just as well as those of heterosexual couples.





> In meetings hosted by the Heritage Foundation in Washington in late 2010, *opponents of same-sex marriage discussed the urgent need to generate new studies on family structures and children, according to recent pretrial depositions of two witnesses in the Michigan trial and other participants.* One result was the marshaling of $785,000 for a large-scale study by Mark  HYPERLINK
> "UT College of Liberal Arts:"Regnerus, a meeting participant and a sociologist at the University of Texas who will testify in Michigan.





> ………four social science researchers, all of whom attended at least one of the Heritage Foundation meetings and went on to publish new reports, are scheduled to testify in favor of Michigan’s ban.
> 
> The most prominent is Dr. Regnerus. His study, published in 2012, was *condemned by leading social scientists as misleading and irrelevant, *but some conservatives call it the best of its kind and continue to cite it in speeches and court cases.





> Dr. Regnerus found that the subjects in that category fared worse based on a host of behavioral and psychological measures than those who grew up in intact traditional families. The study, Dr. Regnerus wrote, “clearly reveals” that children are most apt to succeed when they grow up “with their married mother and father.”





> *But professional rejections of Dr. Regnerus’s conclusions were swift and severe.* In a friend of the court brief  http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2014/03/amicus-curiae-friend-of-the-court-friend-of-the-academy/to the Supreme Court last year in two same-sex marriage cases, a report by the 14,000-member American Sociological Association noted that *more than half the subjects whom Dr. Regnerus had described as children of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” were the offspring of failed opposite-sex marriages in which a parent later engaged in same-sex behavior, and that many others never lived with same-sex parents.*



“


> *If any conclusion can be reached from Regnerus’s study,” the association said, “it is that family stability is predictive of child well-being.”*
> 
> *Wendy D. Manning, *a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and the main author of the association report, said of the wider literature: *“Every study has shortcomings, but when you pull them all together, the picture is very clear. There is no evidence that children fare worse in same-sex families.”*





http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/us/opponents-of-same-sex-marriage-take-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 4, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> I have a feeling they're going to know about it pretty soon.  It's an easy oversight to make.  Not all lawyers are scholars on children's legal issues in case law.  It's an obscure area of focus in law.  All it takes is a nice brief to remind them.  No worries.  Better late than never.


*Marriage Equality Opponent Admits ‘No Difference’ Between Same Sex &Hetero Families *



> The talking points of those against marriage equality have never been grounded in the real world, and even strong opponents are realizing it.* In this case, one of the people behind the flawed Regnerus study has admitted that there isn’t a difference between stable same-sex and heterosexual homes when it comes to the health of the child.* Brad Wilcox, one of the researchers for the study, has now indicated some level of acceptance of data refuting his work.





> The Regnerus study has captured the imaginations of anti-gay activists throughout the world. *But in reality, it is complete bunk. Shortly after Regnerus published his work, the narrative behind it unraveled. It turned out that Regnerus had relied on a slew of flawed methodology and had only studied two people raised by same-sex couples.* As one sociologist charged with auditing Regnerus’ study for an academic journal put it: “Since only two respondents were actually raised in gay or lesbian households, this study has absolutely nothing to say about gay parenting outcomes. Indeed, because it is a non-random sample, this study has nothing to say about anything.”





> *Most of the scientists would say that there’s no difference … between a stable same-sex family and a stable heterosexual family,” replied Wilcox*, noting that those scientists might consider stability the “key factor, not other issues that might relate to a child’s well-being.”


…

“





> The data suggest that same-sex couples — and this is really preliminary — are more likely to have stable relationships when the legal regime is more supportive of their relationships,” Wilcox replied. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/06/16/marriage-is-marriage/



YOU have nothing except your inane appeals to ignorance and links to articles and studies that in no way say what  you claim that they say.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 4, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Neither you nor anyone else has been able to demonstrate that same sex marriage  or having two parents of the  same sex is harmful.



Visit any one of the three links in this OP to find out why you can be proven wrong in a court of law:  Dumont v Lyons 2017 : Will Fathers (or Mothers) Be Judicially-Legislated Into Irrelevance?

Oh heck, I know you're too lazy so here: (you understand that children come in both boy and girl form?)
Youth_Index_2010_Jan2011.pdf
The Importance of Fathers
fatherhood.pdf


----------



## mdk (Dec 4, 2017)

The Prince's Trust.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 4, 2017)

mdk said:


> The Prince's Trust.


You forgot "Psychology Today" also..."The US Department of Health and Human Services"...Name all three links mdk.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 5, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > The Prince's Trust.
> ...


You mean the article that starts out with a bible verse??  The one where the author asserts that the "positive results of a father's influence on the moral reasoning of an adolescent son, allowing me to graduate on time."   What does that mean. This is basically an essay that cites some research that purportedly  proves that fathers are important, but does not present those studies in full.

And the DHHS blurb proves nothing either. It's about a grant to promote responsible fatherhood. It says nothing about children needing parents of the opposite sex.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 5, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Neither you nor anyone else has been able to demonstrate that same sex marriage  or having two parents of the  same sex is harmful.
> ...


Same debunked  bovine excrement. Different day.   Yet you cant seem to explain why the state of Michigan had to hire an incompetent charlatan who was disowned by his own university to try to convince  a court that same sex marriage is harmful to children. He was thrown out of court and the case failed. You cant explain why they did not just use some credible evidence of harm to the children. I can BECAUSE THERE IS NONE.

You also have run from the question of how banning same sex marriage would result in more children having a mother and a father. 

Time and again, you prove yourself to be motivated by mindless and soulless bigotry-not concern for children. You shamelessly use children!


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Dec 5, 2017)

If Angela were Angus and step father to the children and the mother died they would still go to their father and heterosexual step father would not even have visitation. 

What is your beef again?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 5, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> If Angela were Angus and step father to the children and the mother died they would still go to their father and heterosexual step father would not even have visitation.
> 
> What is your beef again?


Holy shit! What are you blathering about and who are you addressing.?? You're making no sense at all. I do believe that you are in fact tipsy. A cat lover? Not so sure. I'm a cat lover.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 5, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You also have run from the question of how banning same sex marriage would result in more children having a mother and a father.


Adoption isn't about churning kids out like a mill.  It's about placing them carefully so their little lives are in the best hands.  Two people having a contract that banishes them from either a father or mother for life is not "in the best hands".  And, such a contract is illegal.  Especially to use to qualify to adopt...any child...and perhaps especially the ones most vulnerable, unloved/at-risk...


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Dec 5, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > If Angela were Angus and step father to the children and the mother died they would still go to their father and heterosexual step father would not even have visitation.
> ...



The OP posed a question did you not read it?    Did you read it?

Yes you are a cat lover, in a white wine reduction sauce I'm sure.


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Dec 5, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You also have run from the question of how banning same sex marriage would result in more children having a mother and a father.
> ...



What are the best hands?   In a pathological culture where there is a basis in depravity and perversion, then raising children to be depraved and accept perversion is a cultural imperitive.

Little boys do not, in the ordinary course of their lives, want their assholes buggered.  It hurts.  It bleeds.  They must be nurtured into acceptance.  Who better to do that nuturing than a pervert acting as a parent.


----------



## emilynghiem (Dec 5, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> The question is why should some other individual control your life in the first place?
> 
> They can choose their own track in life but should stay the fuck out of other peoples life choices...Many of these people have the nerve to whine about how small government and personal responsibility they're but sure as fuck want the government to enforce their belief system against other people. Maybe they should deal with their own goddamn life and I'll deal with mine.



Dear ScienceRocks EXACTLY
this is the reasoning used by Libertarians and other Constitutionalists
who argue to keep marriage out of govt and govt out of marriage altogether!

BINGO!

keep the govt contracts secular and neutral of personal connections,
but only about the legal and financial terms and agreements:
ie civil unions or domestic partnerships
estates, guardianships, executors, etc.

As for marriage and benefits, keep these private.
Catholic church programs are private and decide their own terms for their own members.
Mormons manage their own private social security type program for their members
where they agree to the terms.

Galveston Texas has its own social security program for its resident citizens,
so any group of people can set up their own and manage collective resources
similar to a credit union, health shares ministry, or family trust.

But handing control of social and marriage benefits
means depending on a FEDERAL authority and policy that is required to represent
ALL PEOPLE under it. So if people have CONFLICTING beliefs about marriage,
then if Govt establishes one belief or another, that's establishing a national religion!
That's a violation of the First Amendment.

So that's what is happening with abusing govt to establish political beliefs about marriage.
It is essentially violating religious freedom of one group or another that has DISSENTING beliefs.
Not constitutional!

This still needs to be corrected or it's discriminating
against either one group or another by creed.
The govt should remain neutral, so there is no bias toward one group's beliefs about marriage
or the other.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 5, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> What are the best hands?   In a pathological culture where there is a basis in depravity and perversion, then raising children to be depraved and accept perversion is a cultural imperitive [sic].
> 
> Little boys do not, in the ordinary course of their lives, want their assholes buggered.  It hurts.  It bleeds.  They must be nurtured into acceptance.  Who better to do that nuturing [sic] than a pervert acting as a parent.



  And isn't the motive rather obvious, of the pervert-rights bunch wanting to get their hands on children?  Though they seldom openly admit it,it is quiet clear that pedophilia is under the umbrella of behaviors and perversions that they wish to promote, and that their intent in putting children in the custody of perverts is to allow those children to be groomed into easier prey for the child molesters among them.  How blind must one be not to see this?


----------



## emilynghiem (Dec 5, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> Conservatives sure bitch about the importance of the constitutions but the constitutions doesn't allow for another group of people to be discriminated against. That is why homosexual marriage is legal! Accept it.



Dear ScienceRocks 
Yes, for laws to be applied constitutionally equal and inclusive of people of all beliefs,
homosexual marriage should be legal as a spiritual practice, ritual or exercise of religion
that govt cannot regulate. However, to be consistently constitutional, govt should neither
prohibit nor establish it.

1. One argument that IS unconstitutional is that govt or laws should ban it.
This is clearly unconstitutional to abuse govt to ban a religious, spiritual or faith based belief that people have a right to practice by free choice.

2. However, the constitutional argument that I would support as a valid objection
is that govt should not establish ANY beliefs about marriage in conflict with the beliefs of any persons represented by that law.  Federal laws are supposed to represent and apply to all people under that jurisdiction. So if people don't agree religiously on marriage, the federal and state govts cannot endorse a policy unless all their citizens consent to it who are under it.

Now if it happens that a State has citizens who agree to vote by majority rule, or consent to a court ruling, that is biased toward one belief or another, as long as those citizens AGREE, they have the right to pass such a law they all consent to. But that is NOT what is happening, because beliefs are at stake on both sides, and neither side AGREES to have the other beliefs imposed on them!

This is EXACTLY why "marriage" should be kept out of govt which should remain neutral.
If you start dragging social beliefs into marriage, where people do not agree,
that's why govt cannot be abused to enforce, endorse or establish one policy or another.

People do NOT AGREE to have govt establish conflicting beliefs that violate their own.

The reason these rulings are where they are right now, is we haven't resolved the conflicts
with political and social beliefs that ought to be treated the same as religious beliefs.
So until we resolve them, these contested ruling remain.

It's not that they are constitutional, because they are still contested and argued as unconstitutional.

It's that we haven't agreed how to resolve the conflicts yet.
Similar to how the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, including parts that weren't constitutional,
so until those were challenged and changed, the law stood as was.

We are still in process of resolving these conflicts over political beliefs.
Slavery also wasn't change until generations later,
but while it was legal, the courts and laws were considered valid
that treated people as property.  Those weren't constitutional in spirit either but were treated as law.


----------



## emilynghiem (Dec 5, 2017)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > What are the best hands?   In a pathological culture where there is a basis in depravity and perversion, then raising children to be depraved and accept perversion is a cultural imperitive [sic].
> ...



No Bob Blaylock
The LGBT don't want Christians to be right about spiritual healing changing orientation.
Because they don't want to be judged or pressured to change orientation,
they turn to arguments that homosexuality is genetic or inborn to justify why it cannot change.

The LGBT advocates are right, that not all homosexuality orientation or transgender identity cases
can change. But the Christians are right that some can, especially cases caused unnaturally by abuse.
Once the abuse is healed, it is possible that some people heal of their homosexual or transgender conditions. 

The real issue that both sides have trouble facing is that cases are different.
Some people can change, some cannot.  So neither side is 100% right about all people.

This battle is stuck because one side argues that ALL cases are natural born and should be
recognized like race; while the other argues NO cases are natural, and these conditions should be cured.

Both sides are equally wrong to exclude the other.
Because there are both types of cases going on, and neither people nor the govt should be the judge, but individuals have the right to their own spiritual identity, orientation and process without govt regulating it.


----------



## emilynghiem (Dec 5, 2017)

mdk said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > Faggotry confuses children. In the old days, they got hung. I'm thinking Jefferson advocated for being too easy on them.
> ...



Dear mdk I believe all people should be healed,
or have the informed choice of spiritual healing.

If they are healed, and identify as gay or transgender,
then I trust that isn't due to some unresolved spiritual issues
but is their natural condition.

But people should have fully informed choices,
access to and knowledge of spiritual healing
so they aren't forced one way or another but truly choose freely.


----------



## emilynghiem (Dec 5, 2017)

GreenBean said:


> The only good fag is a  ------ fill in the blank ------ fag



^...healed...^

as long as people are healed and happy,
there is nothing wrong with how God intends each person to be.
if people are meant to change, that will happen.
if not, then the healing process won't change that.
but at least it removes any negative fears or feelings 
by the power of forgiveness which healing is based on.


----------



## emilynghiem (Dec 5, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > No this thread is about making either fathers or mothers irrelevant in children's lives.
> ...



Dear TheProgressivePatriot and Silhouette
I think you are both right on respective points, minus the personal insults back and forth
that are "irrelevant" to the valid arguments made on this thread.

It is TRUE that kids are better off WITH stable loving parents as legal guardians,
as TheProgressivePatriot argues is independent of orientation.

And it is IS true that kids benefit from mentors and parents who model healthy male-female partnerships.  

I say YES to both. I see no reason to slam or shame either person or side for their beliefs
behind these statements.

It is perfectly possible for both sides to be right and have valid points or argument.

Thank you for starting this thread, and discussing issues we all care about very deeply.

I do believe we'd do better to help set up more foster programs and schools
where kids can live in healthy families and communities, even temporarily until they
can be adopted out by matching them to guardians they connect with personally and spiritually.

Instead of fighting about this, I'd like to do more to help kids.
I've always wanted to set up a school where I could help tutor and manage
for kids aging out of the foster system who might end up living on their own.
At least we could set up campuses where they could go to work or school
and still be part of a loving community.

That's one of my dreams, to do that as a retirement present.
I'd rather form teams and organize resources to do something positive
instead of just watching well meaning people argue about this problems.

Thank you for bringing this up,
and I hope we can all do more in the future to
make a difference in the lives of children without parents or homes.


----------



## emilynghiem (Dec 5, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I see nothing in your scenario which would REQUIRE marriage between the two women for CPS or courts to rule in favor of what is best for the children. It's two different issues but you are attempting to connect them together for purposes of promoting a specific policy.
> ...



Dear TheProgressivePatriot and Boss

Can the children still choose the surviving partner as legal guardian
regardless of marriage or not?

Why can't guardianship and partnerships be recognized neutrally
and independently of social or spiritual beliefs about marriage?

I agree with Boss on one point, that adding social beliefs about marriage
is not necessary. I think the reason TheProgressivePatriot and other LGBT advocates
are having to resort to govt recognition of rights to marriage was because the equal
free exercise of those choices and beliefs were denied legally so it became legally necessary to fight against that.  Had it never been banned, it would not require a legal remedy
to try to restore equal protections of the laws.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 6, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You also have run from the question of how banning same sex marriage would result in more children having a mother and a father.
> ...


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 6, 2017)

^^ That isn't a legal defense that I know of.  "your honor, Oh PLEASE!"  Good luck.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 6, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


Thank you, You're beginning to make sense and sound reasonable now.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 6, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> ^^ That isn't a legal defense that I know of.  "your honor, Oh PLEASE!"  Good luck.


Same sex parents being harmful to children -as a reason to ban same sex marriage damned sure isn't either


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 6, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > ^^ That isn't a legal defense that I know of.  "your honor, Oh PLEASE!"  Good luck.
> ...


Having a contract that banishes children for life from either a mother or father is psychological bondage.  Which of course is not allowed by law to be done to children.  Especially not using a contract.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 6, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I spoke to soon LOL


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 6, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


----------



## Circe (Dec 6, 2017)

DGS49 said:


> A simple question?  Why did it take a dozen paragraphs to set it up?



Yeah, really. Sheeeesh.

Reminds me of the stories the torture fans tell: Suppose there were this terrorist, see, and he hid a bomb somewhere in New York, and it would go off and kill you grandmother unless you torture him..............

You made that up. It never happened. Hypotheticals are not useful.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Dec 6, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> The question is why should some other individual control your life in the first place?
> 
> They can choose their own track in life but should stay the fuck out of other peoples life choices...Many of these people have the nerve to whine about how small government and personal responsibility they're but sure as fuck want the government to enforce their belief system against other people. Maybe they should deal with their own goddamn life and I'll deal with mine.



Your point about GOP hypocrisy is the reason I left the party. Same sex marriage, agree or disagree with it, is a settled issue. Abortion rights, agree or disagree with it, is a settled issue (sort of, still needs to be clarified ie late term, partial birth etc.). The religious faction of the party makes it impossible for true conservatives to be a member of the GOP, IMO.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 6, 2017)

Circe said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > A simple question?  Why did it take a dozen paragraphs to set it up?
> ...


What the hell are you jabbering about? And yes of course I made it up. So very astute of you.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 6, 2017)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Your point about GOP hypocrisy is the reason I left the party. Same sex marriage, agree or disagree with it, is a settled issue. Abortion rights, agree or disagree with it, is a settled issue (sort of, still needs to be clarified ie late term, partial birth etc.). The religious faction of the party makes it impossible for true conservatives to be a member of the GOP, IMO.



As long as Obergefell was an act of judicial-legislation (addition of language to the US Constitution that didn't exist before) it is NOT a settled matter.  An illegal decision in violation of the separation of powers is no more binding upon the States than a gum wrapper.  Plus, have you not heard about the gays vs bakers and gays vs adoption agencies lawsuits?  This ain't over till the fat lady sings my friend.

Did you know it's illegal to possess a contract that banishes children away from a necessity; one that holds them in psychological bondage away from either a mother or father for life?  Did you know there is no language at all in the US Constitution protecting just some deviant sex behaviors (but not others like polygamists)?  That quagmire Obergefell that you call "settled" is in no way at all legally binding.  I'm looking for a southern state to push the issue once a conservative Court is in place.  Enjoy Obergefell while you can.


----------



## emilynghiem (Dec 6, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > ^^ That isn't a legal defense that I know of.  "your honor, Oh PLEASE!"  Good luck.
> ...



What I see harmful TheProgressivePatriot is
when the liberal and LGBT advocates go "too far" and deny access to and
knowledge of spiritual healing taught and practiced by Christians
that has been used to resolve, correct, cure and/or prevent causes of abuse, 
including sexual abuse and relationship abuse that are the real issue both sides
are trying to address.

No, this doesn't mean homosexuals are "promoting pedophilia" --
but by DENYING the choice, experiences and process that "ex gay" members of the LGBT community go through, such as by EXCLUDING the input and voices of "ex gays" and REJECTING the choice of reparative therapy,
this ends up censoring the very healing therapies that are NECESSARY in the case of dangerous pedophile addicts. This cure is being denied because of backlash against Christians causing rejection of even the sound practices and solutions to even worse problems.

So that's why Christians argue this is either directly or indirectly
"enabling" abusive relations or addictions, because of rejecting and censoring spiritual healing as
valid and voluntary process that is natural and effective. Not fraudulent malpractice when it is done right.

I believe if we were to focus on the benefits of spiritual healing, applied to
healing ills on all levels from the mind, body, spirit and even SOCIAL RELATIONS among people,
then a lot of these other arguments would get resolved in the process.


----------



## Circe (Dec 6, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What the hell are you jabbering about? And yes of course I made it up. So very astute of you.




Setting up long hypotheticals is not good argument. Especially not after attracting people to your thread by promising one simple question!! You didn't ask one simple question, you wrote a book-length fiction. I doubt anyone struggled through it; I certainly didn't bother, because to do that is a scam.

Try asking a simple, short question.


----------



## Vastator (Dec 6, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> Conservatives sure bitch about the importance of the constitutions but the constitutions doesn't allow for another group of people to be discriminated against. That is why homosexual marriage is legal! Accept it.


Actually...  It only excludes the government from discriminating against a group of people, with force of law...  None the less they still do. 
And besides; religions can discriminate against whomever they like...  When it comes to the gay marriage issue,  the queers are in it for the money.  Average Joe on the streets give such marriages zero legitimacy.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 6, 2017)

Vastator said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> > Conservatives sure bitch about the importance of the constitutions but the constitutions doesn't allow for another group of people to be discriminated against. That is why homosexual marriage is legal! Accept it.
> ...


A boatload of bigoted bovine excrement. I don't know what street you live on but  "the average joe" on my street believes in equality


----------



## Circe (Dec 6, 2017)

[QUOTE="I don't know what street you live on but  "the average joe" on my street believes in equality[/QUOTE]

Naaaaaah, normal people believe in normalcy. I bet you thought Hillary would win, didn't you?

People are not telling you what they really think. Not the people on your street, anyway.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Dec 6, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Your point about GOP hypocrisy is the reason I left the party. Same sex marriage, agree or disagree with it, is a settled issue. Abortion rights, agree or disagree with it, is a settled issue (sort of, still needs to be clarified ie late term, partial birth etc.). The religious faction of the party makes it impossible for true conservatives to be a member of the GOP, IMO.
> ...



See! You are the perfect example of why I left the Republican Party. You zealots spend political capital on settled issues, and then lose on issues that can still be won. We have folks like you to thank for BOcare, and the ever expanding entitlement spending. BTW-  BOcare passed because of judicial activism.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 6, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Your point about GOP hypocrisy is the reason I left the party. Same sex marriage, agree or disagree with it, is a settled issue. Abortion rights, agree or disagree with it, is a settled issue (sort of, still needs to be clarified ie late term, partial birth etc.). The religious faction of the party makes it impossible for true conservatives to be a member of the GOP, IMO.
> ...



Obergefell was just the latest in 4 Supreme Court rulings that overturned unconstitutional State marriage laws.

Nothing legislative about it.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 6, 2017)

Vastator said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to the gay marriage issue,  the queers are in it for the money.  Average Joe on the streets give such marriages zero legitimacy.
> ...




"Queers" are in it for the same reason as "Breeders"- if you think that all of us 'Breeders" are only in marriage for the money- well you are welcome to your opinion.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 6, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Your point about GOP hypocrisy is the reason I left the party. Same sex marriage, agree or disagree with it, is a settled issue. Abortion rights, agree or disagree with it, is a settled issue (sort of, still needs to be clarified ie late term, partial birth etc.). The religious faction of the party makes it impossible for true conservatives to be a member of the GOP, IMO.
> ...



There is no such contract. And the Infancy Doctrine says no such thing. 

You lie

As usual.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 6, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> What I see harmful TheProgressivePatriot is
> when the liberal and LGBT advocates go "too far" and deny access to and
> knowledge of spiritual healing taught and practiced by Christians
> that has been used to resolve, correct, cure and/or prevent causes of abuse,
> ...


You are descending  back into the land  of the bizarre .. How the hell are the liberal and LGBT advocates  doing any of that???!!!


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 6, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > What I see harmful TheProgressivePatriot is
> ...



Do you really try to read that mass of word salad Emily spews out?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 6, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> No, this doesn't mean homosexuals are "promoting pedophilia" --


Gee thanks!!!  You are so enlightened!!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 6, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> by DENYING the choice, experiences and process that "ex gay" members of the LGBT community go through, such as by EXCLUDING the input and voices of "ex gays" and REJECTING the choice of reparative therapy,


"Ex Gays" have been shamed , abused , and tortured   into conforming to a lifestyle that is not their true selves.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 6, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> this ends up censoring the very healing therapies that are NECESSARY in the case of dangerous pedophile addicts. This cure is being denied because of backlash against Christians causing rejection of even the sound practices and solutions to even worse problems.
> 
> So that's why Christians argue this is either directly or indirectly
> "enabling" abusive relations or addictions, because of rejecting and censoring spiritual healing as
> valid and voluntary process that is natural and effective. Not fraudulent malpractice when it is done right.


It is the bigots who use religion as a weapon who need therapy


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 6, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> I believe if we were to focus on the benefits of spiritual healing, applied to
> healing ills on all levels from the mind, body, spirit and even SOCIAL RELATIONS among people,
> then a lot of these other arguments would get resolved in the process.


Why not exorcism?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 6, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


Yes. It's fun ( and a challenge)


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 7, 2017)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...



If things are settled, why have a Supreme Court in the first place. Gay Marriage WAS settled, until it wasn't.


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 7, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > by DENYING the choice, experiences and process that "ex gay" members of the LGBT community go through, such as by EXCLUDING the input and voices of "ex gays" and REJECTING the choice of reparative therapy,
> ...



And you know this how? What test did you use?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 7, 2017)

Pop23 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


Test?? I can read. Something that apparently cannot do- a least not with comprehension

So-called “conversion therapy,” sometimes known as “reparative therapy,” is a range of dangerous and discredited practices that falsely claim to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. Such practices have been rejected by every mainstre     am medical and mental health organization for decades, but due to continuing discrimination and societal bias against LGBTQ people, some practitioners continue to conduct conversion therapy. Minors are especially vulnerable, and conversion therapy can lead to depression, anxiety, drug use, homelessness, and suicide   The Lies and Dangers of "Conversion Therapy" | Human Rights Campaign


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 7, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



No, you claimed they were forced into a lifestyle that is not their true selves. What test did you determine to make that statement. Biologically speaking, after conversion they would be, in fact, living a lifestyle that is their true selves.

Mental issues could influence them prior to, and after, which I suspect is closer to the truth.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 7, 2017)

Pop23 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Because you say so?? Just an appeal to ignorance fallacy


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 7, 2017)

Pop23 said:


> , you claimed they were forced into a lifestyle that is not their true selves. What test did you determine to make that statement. Biologically speaking, after conversion they would be, in fact, living a lifestyle that is their true selves.
> 
> Mental issues could influence them prior to, and after, which I suspect is closer to the truth.


Well there's this, from the 2007 Mayo Clinic article: http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

*One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child*.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the *“abused abusers phenomena”* occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; *an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place*

******
*
And this from 2005 Clinical Psychiatry News

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is *pervasive among gay men* and is so intricately intertwined with *epidemics of* depression, partner abuse, and *childhood sexual abuse* that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > , you claimed they were forced into a lifestyle that is not their true selves. What test did you determine to make that statement. Biologically speaking, after conversion they would be, in fact, living a lifestyle that is their true selves.
> ...


Still obsessed with child sexual abuse  I see  while failing to show that gay men are more likely to prey on children than straight men.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > , you claimed they were forced into a lifestyle that is not their true selves. What test did you determine to make that statement. Biologically speaking, after conversion they would be, in fact, living a lifestyle that is their true selves.
> ...



You mean the article that is not from the Mayo Clinic and doesn't mention anything about why homosexuals are homosexuals?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > ^^ That isn't a legal defense that I know of.  "your honor, Oh PLEASE!"  Good luck.
> ...



Who's "banning" same-sex marriage?  Boy, do you have this timeline backward.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Dec 7, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > A simple question?  Why did it take a dozen paragraphs to set it up?
> ...


Marry, do not marry, why does anyone care? There are crappy hetero parents, there are crappy gay parents. Tax wise you take a bath for getting married.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Dec 7, 2017)

Pop23 said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Why should I have to explain this? The SCOTUS is who settled it.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 7, 2017)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > If things are settled, why have a Supreme Court in the first place. Gay Marriage WAS settled, until it wasn't.
> ...



It was "settled" illegally using judicial-legislation which is a violation of the separate of powers.  Obergefell had no Constitutional backing.  There is no language whatsoever addressing deviant sex behaviors. Obergefell's 5 Justices attempted to add language that doesn't exist to the US Constitution, which is disallowed.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Dec 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So what? Bitch and moan that you don’t like the SCOTUS decision to what end? Who can overturn the scotus decision? They are the highest court and when they rule, its over. Grow up.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 8, 2017)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Why should I have to explain this? The SCOTUS is who settled it.



It was "settled" illegally using judicial-legislation which is a violation of the separate of powers.  Obergefell had no Constitutional backing.  There is no language whatsoever addressing deviant sex behaviors. Obergefell's 5 Justices attempted to add language that doesn't exist to the US Constitution, which is disallowed.



BuckToothMoron said:


> So what? Bitch and moan that you don’t like the SCOTUS decision to what end? *Who can overturn the scotus decision? They are the highest court and when they rule, its over*. Grow up.



You know it's funny you should bring that up.  SCOTUS can overturn SCOTUS.  It happened in 2015 actually when Obergefell overturned Windsor 2013.  And that by the SAME sitting Justices just two years after Windsor was "settled".  Windsor used "states get to decide on marriage" as the means of awarding the woman Windsor her money.  That opinion reaffirmed no less than 56 times in its writing that "absolutely and inarguably it's up to the states what marriage is or isn't."  And that was indeed the proper and Constitutionally-supported decision. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Then just two years later, the court, overstepping its authority via the balance of powers, added brand new language to the Constitution by saying that the 14th Amendment (somehow, without any language whatsover indicating at all) covers just some practitioners of deviant sex behaviors (but not others like polyamorists/polygamists).  It ripped the authority away from the states (overturning Windsor's 56-repeated assertions to the contrary) and put the fed in the business of (arbitrary, remember polygamists) cherry picking who can and cannot marry when it comes to just some deviant sex behaviors....who have no expressed nor insinuated Constitutional protections from the majority.

So, now we have the new conservative Justice replacing Scalia, who died I believe in part from utter shock and astonishment at Obergefell just a few months after it came down (read his dissenting opinion if you think this is a wild belief).  Ginsburg is what, 105 years old?  Her competence is surely in question because just a few weeks before the Court sat on Obergefell, she came out publicly to declare in an interview that she felt America was ready for gay marriage.  That's illegal for a Justice to do.  (Caperton vs A.T. Massey Coal 2009).

February 2017 (The Hearing had not happened yet)


> Both Ginsburg, and Justice Elena Kagan — another member of the high court’s liberal wing — have presided at weddings for same-sex couples. And in an interview with Bloomberg Business last Wednesday, Ginsburg said that it “would not take a large adjustment” for Americans to get used to nationwide marriage equality. Calls increase for Ginsburg to recuse herself in same-sex marriage case  February 17, 2015



So SCOTUS can overturn SCOTUS.  And they can apparently do so fundamentally in two years time.  It's been over two years since Obergefell's "voodoo" judicial-legislation.  So buckle up.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Dec 8, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Why should I have to explain this? The SCOTUS is who settled it.
> ...



Knock yourself out if you want to get your tail in a knot over this. Personally, it is not that important to me. I was, and still am opposed to same sex marriage on the grounds that is redefining an institution, a definition which has always been in place (marriage is a union between a man and a woman). I never bought the argument that it was discrimination because a gay man can marry a lesbian woman. In other words,  the right to marriage was not dependent on sexual orientation. I have always felt that there should be a separate institution for same sex couples. But in the end, it really makes little difference to me, because unlike you, I don’t think homosexuality is deviant. I think it is how some people are wired and you can’t pray the gay away.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 9, 2017)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Knock yourself out if you want to get your tail in a knot over this. *Personally, it is not that important to me.* I was, and still am opposed to same sex marriage on the grounds that is redefining an institution, a definition which has always been in place (marriage is a union between a man and a woman). I never bought the argument that it was discrimination because a gay man can marry a lesbian woman. In other words,  the right to marriage was not dependent on sexual orientation. *I have always felt that there should be a separate institution for same sex couples. But in the end, it really makes little difference to me, because unlike you, I don’t think homosexuality is deviant.* I think it is how some people are wired and you can’t pray the gay away.


Ah now suddenly when I make points you can't refute, you return to nonchalance....clever dodge.  I'll note you concede a loss in this debate.

Gay marriage does make a difference in that it creates a contract that strips the state it's in of its share of the old contract: providing money to married subservient partners to the contract in exchange for those two people to provide both a mother and father to its future citizens for their best upbringing.  The gay marriage contract not only does not deliver to the state's share in the deal, it strips children involved, for life, of either a mother or father.

It is truly the definition of "anti-marriage" as far as the other partners to the contract are concerned: the state and the state's children.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Dec 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Knock yourself out if you want to get your tail in a knot over this. *Personally, it is not that important to me.* I was, and still am opposed to same sex marriage on the grounds that is redefining an institution, a definition which has always been in place (marriage is a union between a man and a woman). I never bought the argument that it was discrimination because a gay man can marry a lesbian woman. In other words,  the right to marriage was not dependent on sexual orientation. *I have always felt that there should be a separate institution for same sex couples. But in the end, it really makes little difference to me, because unlike you, I don’t think homosexuality is deviant.* I think it is how some people are wired and you can’t pray the gay away.
> ...



You can declare a false victory in this debate if it makes you feel better (it’s a strategy often employed by lib snowflakes),  but long after you’re gone men will be marrying men, and women will be marrying women, so ultimately you are on the losing side and you’re too myopic to realize it. 

BTW- if you’re ultimate concern is for children based on the misconception that a homosexual couple can’t raise a healthy and well adjusted child, then I suggest you do some research. I know adults who were raised in same sex households, and they are just fine. Get your bible out of your hand and open your mind.
Do children of gay parents develop differently?
In 2001, Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, then sociologists at the University of Southern California, published a review of 21 previous studies of the children of homosexual parents (most of them lesbians). Almost uniformly, they wrote, the research found no systematic differences between children reared by a mother and father and those raised by same-sex parents.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 9, 2017)

BuckToothMoron said:


> BTW- if you’re ultimate concern is for children based on the misconception that a homosexual couple can’t raise a healthy and well adjusted child, then I suggest you do some research.



There's no research necessary.  Gay marriage contracts upon their face banish any children implicitly anticipated to be involved from either a father or mother for life.  There is no way to parse out that banishment other than "contractual-deprivation of a vital psychological need".  Period.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Dec 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > BTW- if you’re ultimate concern is for children based on the misconception that a homosexual couple can’t raise a healthy and well adjusted child, then I suggest you do some research.
> ...



So are you working to pull children away from single parents too? It’s closed minded, dim witted folks like you that drove me from the Republican Party. I would wish you a happy life, but there is little chance that a person as empty headed and soulless as you will ever find peace and happiness......hmmm, maybe there is a god.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > BTW- if you’re ultimate concern is for children based on the misconception that a homosexual couple can’t raise a healthy and well adjusted child, then I suggest you do some research.
> ...



Wrong as usual. 

First, you're railing against same sex parenting. Which isn't predicated on marriage. If you outlaw same sex marriage, same sex parenting still happens. Same sex couples have been raising their own children for a very long time. So your proposed 'solution' (banning same sex marriage) does nothing to remedy your proposed problem (same sex parenting). Making your entire argument spectacularly pointless.

Second, the courts have repeatedly found that denying same sex couples marriage hurts their children. Explicitly contradicting you.

Third, no marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. 

Rendering your argument worse than useless. As it remedies no harm, causes harm, and has nothing to do with the legal foundation of any marriage.

No thank you.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 9, 2017)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...



Of course not. Sil _is_ a single parent. Sil is railing against gay people being allowed to raise their own children.....despite single parenthood having the exact same detriments per her own 'logic'......only worse. As the child is denied the guidance, time and resources of the second parent in single parent households.

There is no logic or reason to Sil's perspective.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Dec 9, 2017)

Skylar said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



I have a feeling she is bitter, why I don’t know.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 9, 2017)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...



One can speculate. I prefer to simply demonstrate the absurdity of her arguments instead.


----------



## Votto (Dec 9, 2017)

SassyIrishLass said:


> They can be married
> 
> /thread



They legalize gay marriage and it is still not enough.  They must still convince every person on the planet it is OK.

Something tells me deep down they know better.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Why should I have to explain this? The SCOTUS is who settled it.
> ...



Obergefell didn't overturn Windsor. You grossly misunderstood Windsor. Windsor was about federal law. Obergefell about State law. Both were in favor of same sex couples, protecting their rights and freedoms.

Your gross misunderstandings don't translate into any constitutional crisis.





> And that by the SAME sitting Justices just two years after Windsor was "settled".  Windsor used "states get to decide on marriage" as the means of awarding the woman Windsor her money.  That opinion reaffirmed no less than 56 times in its writing that "absolutely and inarguably it's up to the states what marriage is or isn't."  And that was indeed the proper and Constitutionally-supported decision. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?



Again, you carefully ignore the key portion of the Windsor ruling....constitutional guarantees. 



> *Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, *see_, e.g., Loving_ v. _Virginia_, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” _Sosna_ v. _Iowa_, 419 U. S. 393.



And it was the constitutional right to marriage that the Courts cited in Obergefell. You omit this portion of the Windsor ruling from every citation of it. And then laughably pretend that because you ignored it, it didn't apply.

Um, how'd that work out for you?

And to further telegraph how ludicrously obvious the courts sentiment was in the Windsor ruling, Scalia's dissent in Windsor:



> "In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will
> take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated
> beyond mistaking by today’s opinion......
> 
> ...



Scalia accurately predicted the Obergefell court's ruling in favor of same sex marriage. Yet you ignored Scalia, ignored the Windsor ruling and insisted that you knew better how the court would rule in Obergefell. 

Again, how'd willful ignorance work out for you?


----------



## Skylar (Dec 9, 2017)

Votto said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > They can be married
> ...



Something tells me, deep down, you're projecting.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Dec 9, 2017)

DGS49 said:


> A simple question?  Why did it take a dozen paragraphs to set it up?
> 
> For ANY law on the books, it is possible to imagine a set of circumstances where the application of it would be "unjust" or silly or counterproductive.
> 
> ...



Does this mean if you have to read more than one sentence, it's not simple?


----------



## Votto (Dec 9, 2017)

Skylar said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



So let me ask you, let's say this guy had not been a jerk an abusive father.

Would it have been a great thing for the mother to just walk off with the other woman?


----------



## Skylar (Dec 9, 2017)

Votto said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


So you're just abandoning all your babble about the legalization of same sex marriage and what gays believe?

Your concession is accepted.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 10, 2017)

Except that nagging issue of the gay marriage contract banishing children for life from either a mother or father.  No contract is allowed to banish a child from a psychological necessity.  If it does, it's not merely open to challenge, but instead immediately void upon its face before its ink is dry.  Such is the seriousness with which society places on the Infancy Doctrine's protections for children against adults who would otherwise be taking advantage of them.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 10, 2017)

Votto said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > They can be married
> ...


They freed the slaves but somehow that was not enough . The black folks wanted more too. Your thoughts??


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 10, 2017)

A race of people is not = to deviant sex behaviors.  There's some thoughts for you.  Nowhere in the US Constitution is there a slight insinuation of mention of protections for just some (but not other, like polygamy) sexual kinks.  NADA.  ZIP  NOTHING.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 10, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



Actually, until the leftists infected the black community with their poisonous attitudes in the 60s, what they really wanted was just to be left alone to live their lives.  It's a sad irony that just when they finally started to truly win recognition of that right, they got brainwashed into becoming the left's favorite token victim class, and shot the whole thing to Hell.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 11, 2017)

Yeah. The gays don't want black oppression to be a distant foggy memory. Otherwise what else could they ride the coattails of to milk sympathy for their cult of ass sex?  So much more sanitary to market that crap "as equal to racial oppression!"  

Very nice of them too, the comparison of a noble race to a dude humping another guys asshole.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Yeah. The gays don't want black oppression to be a distant foggy memory. Otherwise what else could they ride the coattails of to milk sympathy for their cult of ass sex?  So much more sanitary to market that crap "as equal to racial oppression!"
> 
> Very nice of them too, the comparison of a noble race to a dude humping another guys asshole.



And by 'milk sympathy', you mean enjoy the same rights as everyone else?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 11, 2017)

Skylar said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. The gays don't want black oppression to be a distant foggy memory. Otherwise what else could they ride the coattails of to milk sympathy for their cult of ass sex?  So much more sanitary to market that crap "as equal to racial oppression!"
> ...



Oh, spare me.  There is nothing that they're fighting for that is a "right" enjoyed by other people, however much they try to dress it up as such.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 11, 2017)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


Same sex couples weren't fighting for the right to marry like everyone else?

You might want to tell the Supreme Court that. As the Obergefell ruling seems to contradict your assumptions rather elegantly.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 11, 2017)

Skylar said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



No, they aren't.  They're fighting for the "right" to marry in a way that no one else does, or can.

You might want to consider that the Supreme Court is hardly infallible, and that it's very suspicious that leftists only consider their decisions to be unchangeable gospel from on high when they agree with them.  Otherwise, they seem to view those decisions as strangely meaningless and ephemeral.  Curious, that.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 11, 2017)

The 2015 USSC was undisguised as in-pocket for the LGBT cult.  The 2018 Court won't be that as much. Obergefell (fed decides marriage for the states) overturned Windsor (states decide marriage for the fed) in 2 years' time.  So quick turnarounds do have precedent in the USSC.  Recent precedent too.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 11, 2017)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Same sex couples fought for the right to marry....just like any other couple. And they won. As demonstrated elegantly by same sex marriage being recognized and legal in 50 of 50 states.


> You might want to consider that the Supreme Court is hardly infallible, and that it's very suspicious that leftists only consider their decisions to be unchangeable gospel from on high when they agree with them.  Otherwise, they seem to view those decisions as strangely meaningless and ephemeral.  Curious, that.



I consider their rulings legally authoritative on issues of rights and the constitution. 

And so does the State you live in. As same sex marriage is legal there too.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> The 2015 USSC was undisguised as in-pocket for the LGBT cult.  The 2018 Court won't be that as much. Obergefell (fed decides marriage for the states) overturned Windsor (states decide marriage for the fed) in 2 years' time.  So quick turnarounds do have precedent in the USSC.  Recent precedent too.



Sigh....another batshit conspiracy, Sil?

Is this where you start babbling about how Kennedy must be gay and start ranting about how 'the gays' have infiltrated Gallup polling again?


----------



## Vinnieboombotz (Dec 11, 2017)

In my opinion racists who marry and have children are for more dangerous than gays.


----------



## Circe (Dec 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Did you know it's illegal to possess a contract that banishes children away from a necessity; one that holds them in psychological bondage away from either a mother or father for life?  Did you know there is no language at all in the US Constitution protecting just some deviant sex behaviors (but not others like polygamists)?  That quagmire Obergefell that you call "settled" is in no way at all legally binding.  I'm looking for a southern state to push the issue once a conservative Court is in place.  Enjoy Obergefell while you can.



You remind me of a very leftist lady in a group I was in some 18 years ago, who kept telling us about how wonderful it was that her homosexual brother who had a black homosexual mate, and they had adopted a black baby, a boy, in New Jersey. It didn't seem wonderful to me: it seemed like a school for sex perversion. I suppose converting children is the only way homosexuals can reproduce, and I'm surprised the state of New Jersey allows such a thing. I guess they just don't have ANYone to adopt unwanted black children and are desperate. The issue must be that some care is better than no care at all, in a state orphanage. I don't think this sort of thing is right all the same -- poor kid! -- and should be stopped.


----------



## Circe (Dec 11, 2017)

[QUOTE="TheProgressivePatriot, post: 18771051, member: 54822
Still obsessed with child sexual abuse  I see  while failing to show that gay men are more likely to prey on children than straight men.[/QUOTE]

The whole entire world knows that homosexual males prey on boys wildly more than anyone else. Also teens. Like that Rep. Mark Foley who was constantly and obscenely propositioning male pages in Congress, till they finally threw him out. I think they should stop doing it. it's a pretty terrible thing to do, to convert children and teens to such a perverse lifestyle.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Did you know it's illegal to possess a contract that banishes children away from a necessity; one that holds them in psychological bondage away from either a mother or father for life?



Did you know that your personal opinion isn't a legal argument?

As no such restrictions on any marriage actually exist in the law.



> Did you know there is no language at all in the US Constitution protecting just some deviant sex behaviors (but not others like polygamists)?



1) 9th amendment: not all rights must be enumerated.

2) The basis of the right to marry isn't sex.

Really, this is getting embarrassing.



> That quagmire Obergefell that you call "settled" is in no way at all legally binding.



Laughing......the 50 of 50 states that now recognize same sex marriage would disagree.

Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 11, 2017)

Skylar said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



No, they fought for the "right" to legal sanction of same-sex relationships, something no one else had ever had.  It's only "just like everyone else" if you're dumb enough to believe that women and men are exactly alike and interchangeable, which I know you don't really believe, or you wouldn't be very good at toeing the feminist line or the transgender "I'm a woman/man in my head" line.  You can't have it all ways at once, y'know.

Also, they didn't "won" much of anything, really.  You leftists are always in such a rush to get your own way by hook or by crook and to force your will onto everyone else that you never see the logical conclusion of your actions.  If they really wanted to win a lasting achievement, they'd have gone by way of public opinion and votes instead of judicial fiat.  I don't think I'd be touting a "victory" that causes more hostility and conflict than there was to start with.  Rather Pyrrhic, in my opinion.

ALL of their rulings are on the issues of rights and the Constitution, dumbass.  That's their JOB.  You consider their rulings legally authoritative when it gives you your way, and at no other time.  You can bullshit yourself about that if you like, but I'M not stupid enough to believe you.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 11, 2017)

QUOTE="TheProgressivePatriot, post: 18771051, member: 54822]
Still obsessed with child sexual abuse  I see  while failing to show that gay men are more likely to prey on children than straight men.[/QUOTE]



Circe said:


> The whole entire world knows that homosexual males prey on boys wildly more than anyone else. Also teens. Like that Rep. Mark Foley who was constantly and obscenely propositioning male pages in Congress, till they finally threw him out. I think they should stop doing it. it's a pretty terrible thing to do, to convert children and teens to such a perverse lifestyle.



The whole entire world? What world is that ? The narrow, isolated bubble world of bigots who are to ignorant to know that there's a difference between gay man and pedophiles?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 11, 2017)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


That is quite a boatload of bizarre ,bigoted bovine excrement. I take it you're not happy with the ruling.?? Perhaps you could your position a little bit more coherently.  Who is it that said men and women are interchangeable ? And, what exactly does that have to do with the marriage issue?  And drop the crap about transgender too.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 11, 2017)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



They fought for the right to marry, just like anyone else. And won.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



It is impossible for the Supreme Court to settle anything illegally. 

Literally legally impossible.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > BTW- if you’re ultimate concern is for children based on the misconception that a homosexual couple can’t raise a healthy and well adjusted child, then I suggest you do some research.
> ...



Silhouette doesn't need research- the voices in her head are all she needs.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 11, 2017)

Cecilie1200 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...



Wow.....I wonder if you mean the 1860's or 1960's? 

Anyone surprised that Cecile thinks that before the Civil Rights movement (or during slavery?) blacks were just happy as can be to be denied their voting rights, and to be lynched.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> A race of people is not = to deviant sex behaviors.  .



Well good thing that marriage is not based upon any sex behaviors.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Except that nagging issue of the gay marriage contract banishing children for life from.



Except that nagging issue of Silhouette spamming the same lie over and over.

No marriage contract bans children from anything.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 11, 2017)

Votto said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > They can be married
> ...



No- just convince the bigots not to discriminate against them.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 11, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> It is impossible for the Supreme Court to settle anything illegally.
> 
> Literally legally impossible.


So according to you, Obergefell removed fathers as vital to sons and mothers as vital as vital to daughters?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > It is impossible for the Supreme Court to settle anything illegally.
> ...



No . Social Science  researchers did 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > It is impossible for the Supreme Court to settle anything illegally.
> ...



So according to you, Obergefell requires families to kick puppies?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 11, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> It is impossible for the Supreme Court to settle anything illegally.
> 
> Literally legally impossible.



  The Constitution is the highest authority in this country, not the Supreme Court.

  In each and every one of the many instances in which the Supreme Court has _“interpreted”_ the Constitution to mean something different from and irreconcilable with what is actually written in the Constitution, the court has acted illegally.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Dec 11, 2017)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > It is impossible for the Supreme Court to settle anything illegally.
> ...



The SCOTUS interprets  and enforces the Constitution


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 12, 2017)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > It is impossible for the Supreme Court to settle anything illegally.
> ...



And the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution- and protects all of us from unconstitutional laws passed by the Federal government or the State governments. 

Which is why the Supreme Court is able to overturn not only unconstitutional state marriage laws- but also unconstitutional state gun laws.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 12, 2017)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > It is impossible for the Supreme Court to settle anything illegally.
> ...



Literally legally impossible for the Supreme Court to make an illegal ruling.

Despite what the butthurt snowflakes say everytime they disagree with the Supreme Court- but oddly enough never when they agree with the Supreme Court.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 12, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



_“You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”_ — Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William Charles Jarvis (1820)​


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 12, 2017)

Yep. Separation of powers was most clearly violated by 2015's judicial oligarchy. Their "interpretation of the 14th Amendment" reads like a kindergartener's wishful thinking.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 12, 2017)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Blaylock said:
> ...



LOL- Jefferson was still pissed off about _Marbury v. Madison.
_


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 12, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Yep. Separation of powers was most clearly violated by 2015's judicial oligarchy. Their "interpretation of the 14th Amendment" reads like a kindergartener's wishful thinking.



Says the idiot who has repeatedly told us that race, gender and religion are mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

LOL


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 13, 2017)

Then why are other sexual kink intimacies still denied marriage if no persons shall be denied the same privileges as another has?  And please don't tell us it's because the majority objects. Gay marriage is still illegal in CA's Constitution because the majority there has always objected to it.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 13, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Then why are other sexual kink intimacies still denied marriage .



'kink's cannot marry.

People can marry.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 15, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Then why are other sexual kink intimacies still denied marriage .
> ...


Sooooo....

polyamorist-Americans can marry?


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 15, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Sure they can. Any two polyamorist Americans can marry. 

Now if you want to go marry your sister wives- the law says you can't- but you can of course go to court to demand the 'right' to marry your sister wives. 

Go for it.


----------



## Silhouette (Dec 15, 2017)

Well polamory is one or more people attracted to multiple people so your terms of two are oppressive to their sexual orientation.


----------

