2 Gay Italian Designers Slam Elton John's "Synthetic Babies"

[Silhouette]

The fact that you believe gays raising children is something "new" is frankly astonishing. Gays have been raising children for an aburdly long time. Denying them marriage doesn't suddenly make these kids have a mother and father, it only denies their parents a marriage.
How has your marriage been gutted now that gays are marrying? Be specific.

Look pal, brother and sister raising their incest children in the backwoods of Kentucky isn't new either. But that doesn't mean Kentucky should be forced by 5 people in DC to legitimize brother/sister marraige for the sake of those children..

We are talking about how all children over time are "gutted", not adult heteros already married. How children are "gutted" by homosexual marriage is that by its very physical structure it deprives boys of fathers and girls of mothers. If you want to find a class of "gutted" boys in their late teens, find ones who were raised without fathers. If you want to find a class of "gutted girls" in their late teens, find ones who were raised without mothers: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

How shocking of you to try and change the topic to incest. At least you admit the idea of gays raising children isn't something "new" as your foolishly claim. Baby steps...

The topic was you saying that society should bless any family with children whose adults are unmarried. It is spot on topic. You either are deeply concerned about kids with unmarried adults in the home or you aren't. "Partial concern" doesn't count. It makes you look like you are using just some kids to forward an adult agenda..

It is this "partial concern" that will be a key point in the debate next month in SCOTUS. Count on it. It's either that all children with unmarried adults in the home get the perks of marriage or the states get to incentivize which adults make the best parents.

 

[mdk]

The fact that you believe gays raising children is something "new" is frankly astonishing. Gays have been raising children for an aburdly long time. Denying them marriage doesn't suddenly make these kids have a mother and father, it only denies their parents a marriage.
How has your marriage been gutted now that gays are marrying? Be specific.

Look pal, brother and sister raising their incest children in the backwoods of Kentucky isn't new either. But that doesn't mean Kentucky should be forced by 5 people in DC to legitimize brother/sister marraige for the sake of those children..

We are talking about how all children over time are "gutted", not adult heteros already married. How children are "gutted" by homosexual marriage is that by its very physical structure it deprives boys of fathers and girls of mothers. If you want to find a class of "gutted" boys in their late teens, find ones who were raised without fathers. If you want to find a class of "gutted girls" in their late teens, find ones who were raised without mothers: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

How shocking of you to try and change the topic to incest. At least you admit the idea of gays raising children isn't something "new" as your foolishly claim. Baby steps...

The topic was you saying that society should bless any family with children whose adults are unmarried. It is spot on topic.

So instead of addressing my question you just repost your bullshit word for word. Too funny. The simple fact is your marriage isn't being gutted by gays getting married. If it is, than maybe you spend more time worrying about your own marriage instead the marriages of others.

That wasn't what I was saying. That is you making up something I said so you can justify hijacking your own thread...again.


How are gays getting married akin to rape?

How are gays and their allies foolishly boycotting a chicken joint akin or worse than Kristallnacht?

Spare us all your pearl-clutching drama and hysterics.

 

[Political Junky]

Isn't Elton John too old to have babies. Isn't he like 90 or something?

He is 67-ish I believe.

Yes, Elton John is 67.
Donald Trump is 68 and has a young son, too.
Oh my, Trump is older than Hillary.

 

[Inevitable]

Seems to be heterosexuals that deny children their mother or father. It's done at an alarming rate by them. Seems odd you only focus on homosexuals

You are mistaking punitive for incentive.

Let me explain the difference. A state only punishes those who don't provide a mother and father to children by simply denying them the perks of marriage. This way, freedom is preserved and the state does its best to entice families with mothers and fathers for children: the best formative environment for them

Nobody is out to throw people in jail who don't meet the standard. They just simply don't get the perks. This way the states gently guide and encourage the citizens to provide the best formative environment for kids.

And like the gay Italians said, they had a mother and father. Elton John and his "husband" David Furnish also had a mother and father. This is a new experiment that guts the physical structure of the word "marriage". So it needs the permission of the governed.

Well, the burden of proof is on you, to prove that having a mother and a father is the best environment and all others are worse. That is your claim and without proof it is an illogical one. I don't care that some Italian homosexuals agree with you. That isn't proof and it doesn't lend credence.

Further, I don't think it's the governed's place to meddle in the private lives of individuals and how they relate. It doesn't benefit anybody.

 

[Inevitable]

The fact that you believe gays raising children is something "new" is frankly astonishing. Gays have been raising children for an aburdly long time. Denying them marriage doesn't suddenly make these kids have a mother and father, it only denies their parents a marriage.
How has your marriage been gutted now that gays are marrying? Be specific.

Look pal, brother and sister raising their incest children in the backwoods of Kentucky isn't new either. But that doesn't mean Kentucky should be forced by 5 people in DC to legitimize brother/sister marraige for the sake of those children..

We are talking about how all children over time are "gutted", not adult heteros already married. How children are "gutted" by homosexual marriage is that by its very physical structure it deprives boys of fathers and girls of mothers. If you want to find a class of "gutted" boys in their late teens, find ones who were raised without fathers. If you want to find a class of "gutted girls" in their late teens, find ones who were raised without mothers: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Not allowing them to marry has no effect on whether or not they parent children.

So withholding marriage to protect children is kind of like withholding gun rights to prevent gun crime. The two have little effect on each other.

It just denies them the family structure, for no real purpose. Other than to say that you don't approve. Your approval means shit to most people.

 

[Silhouette]

Well, the burden of proof is on you, to prove that having a mother and a father is the best environment and all others are worse. That is your claim and without proof it is an illogical one. I don't care that some Italian homosexuals agree with you. That isn't proof and it doesn't lend credence.

Further, I don't think it's the governed's place to meddle in the private lives of individuals and how they relate. It doesn't benefit anybody.

You have it exactly backwards. When a foreign force (behavior, not race) bangs ceaselessly and urgently at the walls of a long established castle, the burden is not upon the castle's guards to open the gates wide and just "see what happens". The burden is upon the foreign idea to prove itself worthy of being allowed in the castle.

Plus, I know you've read this thread's OP: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Skylar]

Well, the burden of proof is on you, to prove that having a mother and a father is the best environment and all others are worse. That is your claim and without proof it is an illogical one. I don't care that some Italian homosexuals agree with you. That isn't proof and it doesn't lend credence.

Further, I don't think it's the governed's place to meddle in the private lives of individuals and how they relate. It doesn't benefit anybody.

You have it exactly backwards. When a foreign force (behavior, not race) bangs ceaselessly and urgently at the walls of a long established castle, the burden is not upon the castle's guards to open the gates wide and just "see what happens". The burden is upon the foreign idea to prove itself worthy of being allowed in the castle.

If you're going to deny rights to same sex couples, you absolutely have to prove your argument. Your tactic of insisting 'you must disprove whatever bullshit I imagine' isn't actually a legal argument. Which might explain why your ilk have lost 44 of 46 times. And why same sex marriage is legal in 37 of 50 States.

Oh, and denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't mean that their children magically have two parents. It means only that they can never have married parents.

So your 'solution' has nothing to do with your 'problem'. You can't even tell us how denying marriage to same sex parents could benefit their children. While the courts have gone into elaborate detail on how denying marriage to same sex parents hurts their children. Your proposals have no benefit for these children but will instead only harm them.

Um, no. We're doing doing that.

Plus, I know you've read this thread's OP: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Isn't that the thread where you quite literally hallucinated all sorts of shit that the Prince Trust study never mentions? The Prince Trust study never mentions gays. It never mentions same sex marriage. It never mentions same sex parenting, nor measures the effects of any kind of parenting.

And your personal delusions aren't evidence, Sil.

 

[Inevitable]

Well, the burden of proof is on you, to prove that having a mother and a father is the best environment and all others are worse. That is your claim and without proof it is an illogical one. I don't care that some Italian homosexuals agree with you. That isn't proof and it doesn't lend credence.

Further, I don't think it's the governed's place to meddle in the private lives of individuals and how they relate. It doesn't benefit anybody.

You have it exactly backwards. When a foreign force (behavior, not race) bangs ceaselessly and urgently at the walls of a long established castle, the burden is not upon the castle's guards to open the gates wide and just "see what happens". The burden is upon the foreign idea to prove itself worthy of being allowed in the castle.

Plus, I know you've read this thread's OP: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So you are going to excuse your fallacious shifting if the burden of proof with the fallacy of the appeal to tradition?

This is easy to defeat, here goes.

Just because it is the way it always has been doesn't mean it's right.

That's a rather pathetic cop out. I've challenged the status quo. You can't logically defend your claim by saying it's the status quo. That isn't how it works.

 

[Silhouette]

Well, the burden of proof is on you, to prove that having a mother and a father is the best environment and all others are worse. That is your claim and without proof it is an illogical one. I don't care that some Italian homosexuals agree with you. That isn't proof and it doesn't lend credence.

Further, I don't think it's the governed's place to meddle in the private lives of individuals and how they relate. It doesn't benefit anybody.

You have it exactly backwards. When a foreign force (behavior, not race) bangs ceaselessly and urgently at the walls of a long established castle, the burden is not upon the castle's guards to open the gates wide and just "see what happens". The burden is upon the foreign idea to prove itself worthy of being allowed in the castle.

Plus, I know you've read this thread's OP: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So you are going to excuse your fallacious shifting if the burden of proof with the fallacy of the appeal to tradition?
This is easy to defeat, here goes.
Just because it is the way it always has been doesn't mean it's right.
That's a rather pathetic cop out. I've challenged the status quo. You can't logically defend your claim by saying it's the status quo. That isn't how it works.

Given: the LGBT cult is a loose association of some, but not all deviant sexual behaviors. They are not a race of people.

THAT IS THE PREMISE UPON WHICH ALL FURTHER ARGUMENT MUST PROCEED. The only way it cannot proceed that way is if members of the church of LGBT convince the Justices that they are somehow a fixed, non-transitory inclusive group that do not change, ever. Consult Anne Heche and any other lipstick lesbian that leaves her "man-woman" for an actual man for details.. And they must convince the same Court, somehow, that others like themselves that the majority finds objectionable in approach to redact the thousands-years old word "marriage", are not included in "marriage equality".

Moving on to your questions from the premise...

If I wanted to change the laws of driving to include blind people, a brand new, radical, and many would say detrimental form of driving, the burden would not be upon the state to deny me "my proposed rights". Driving is a privelege. Marriage is a privelege. Know how I know you agree with me on that last one? Because you would agree that people, for instance, have to be of a certain age to be married. You would agree that people couldn't be adult consenting brother and sister. You would agree that a man couldn't have 30 wives. You would agree that a mother could not marry her adult son.

So there are exceptions to marriage; which means it is a privelege-defined. And you agree on that. But then you're saying "one of the groups the privelege doesn't extend to by law (and with good reason because if it did it would be institutionalize sons without fathers and daughters without mothers) MUST be allowed the privelege. Else it is tyranny of the majority!" Yet where are your cries of "tyranny!!" when it comes to minors, polygamists & incest marraige? 13 year olds are allowed to marry in New Hampshire. Why aren't you on a stump shouting at the top of your lungs that all 50 states must recognize 13 year olds to marry?? (I know, I know...baby steps...that will come later...)

See the problem here "Inevitable"? Maybe you should change your handle here instead to "50/50".

 

[Inevitable]

Well, the burden of proof is on you, to prove that having a mother and a father is the best environment and all others are worse. That is your claim and without proof it is an illogical one. I don't care that some Italian homosexuals agree with you. That isn't proof and it doesn't lend credence.

Further, I don't think it's the governed's place to meddle in the private lives of individuals and how they relate. It doesn't benefit anybody.

You have it exactly backwards. When a foreign force (behavior, not race) bangs ceaselessly and urgently at the walls of a long established castle, the burden is not upon the castle's guards to open the gates wide and just "see what happens". The burden is upon the foreign idea to prove itself worthy of being allowed in the castle.

Plus, I know you've read this thread's OP: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So you are going to excuse your fallacious shifting if the burden of proof with the fallacy of the appeal to tradition?
This is easy to defeat, here goes.
Just because it is the way it always has been doesn't mean it's right.
That's a rather pathetic cop out. I've challenged the status quo. You can't logically defend your claim by saying it's the status quo. That isn't how it works.

Given: the LGBT cult is a loose association of some, but not all deviant sexual behaviors. They are not a race of people.

THAT IS THE PREMISE UPON WHICH ALL FURTHER ARGUMENT MUST PROCEED. The only way it cannot proceed that way is if members of the church of LGBT convince the Justices that they are somehow a fixed, non-transitory inclusive group that do not change, ever. Consult Anne Heche and any other lipstick lesbian that leaves her "man-woman" for an actual man for details.. And they must convince the same Court, somehow, that others like themselves that the majority finds objectionable in approach to redact the thousands-years old word "marriage", are not included in "marriage equality".

Moving on to your questions from the premise...

If I wanted to change the laws of driving to include blind people, a brand new, radical, and many would say detrimental form of driving, the burden would not be upon the state to deny me "my proposed rights". Driving is a privelege. Marriage is a privelege. Know how I know you agree with me on that last one? Because you would agree that people, for instance, have to be of a certain age to be married. You would agree that people couldn't be adult consenting brother and sister. You would agree that a man couldn't have 30 wives. You would agree that a mother could not marry her adult son.

So there are exceptions to marriage; which means it is a privelege-defined. And you agree on that. But then you're saying "one of the groups the privelege doesn't extend to by law (and with good reason because if it did it would be institutionalize sons without fathers and daughters without mothers) MUST be allowed the privelege. Else it is tyranny of the majority!" Yet where are your cries of "tyranny!!" when it comes to minors, polygamists & incest marraige? 13 year olds are allowed to marry in New Hampshire. Why aren't you on a stump shouting at the top of your lungs that all 50 states must recognize 13 year olds to marry?? (I know, I know...baby steps...that will come later...)

See the problem here "Inevitable"? Maybe you should change your handle here instead to "50/50".

I don't believe there is a good reason to not extend marriage to same sex couples. I find any reason you provide to not be relevant in the least. And any relevant reasons to be stupid and backward.

When it comes to minors, I don't believe it is tyranny.

When it comes to incest and polygamy, I don't really care if they get married.

 

[whitehall]

There was a time when the country formerly known as England bestowed Knighthood on brave warriors and statesmen. Now a homosexual piano player makes the cut.

 

[Inevitable]

There was a time when the country formerly known as England bestowed Knighthood on brave warriors and statesmen. Now a homosexual piano player makes the cut.

I believe they bestowed him with knighthood because if his gifts to charity.

 

[Skylar]

Well, the burden of proof is on you, to prove that having a mother and a father is the best environment and all others are worse. That is your claim and without proof it is an illogical one. I don't care that some Italian homosexuals agree with you. That isn't proof and it doesn't lend credence.

Further, I don't think it's the governed's place to meddle in the private lives of individuals and how they relate. It doesn't benefit anybody.

You have it exactly backwards. When a foreign force (behavior, not race) bangs ceaselessly and urgently at the walls of a long established castle, the burden is not upon the castle's guards to open the gates wide and just "see what happens". The burden is upon the foreign idea to prove itself worthy of being allowed in the castle.

If you're going to deny rights to same sex couples, you absolutely have to prove your argument. Your tactic of insisting 'you must disprove whatever bullshit I imagine' isn't actually a legal argument. Which might explain why your ilk have lost 44 of 46 times. And why same sex marriage is legal in 37 of 50 States.

Oh, and denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't mean that their children magically have two parents. It means only that they can never have married parents.

So your 'solution' has nothing to do with your 'problem'. You can't even tell us how denying marriage to same sex parents could benefit their children. While the courts have gone into elaborate detail on how denying marriage to same sex parents hurts their children. Your proposals have no benefit for these children but will instead only harm them.

Um, no. We're doing doing that.

Plus, I know you've read this thread's OP: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Isn't that the thread where you quite literally hallucinated all sorts of shit that the Prince Trust study never mentions? The Prince Trust study never mentions gays. It never mentions same sex marriage. It never mentions same sex parenting, nor measures the effects of any kind of parenting.

And your personal delusions aren't evidence, Sil.

 

[Silhouette]

This thread is about two gay Italian fashion designers promoting a traditional parent family: mother/father against the outcries of "bigotry"! (wait, what?) from Elton John and his "husband" David Furnish who themselves also had a mother and father. They demand the "right" to be celebrated for their subjecting two boys to a motherless "marriage". Females are just breeders, things, unimportant, unlovable. That is the lesson those two boys will take away from their formative years in their "family"..

The lesson doesn't even have to be spoken. It is implied daily. Children don't miss an implied message. They internalize it moreso than the spoken word.

 

[Skylar]

This thread is about two gay Italian fashion designers promoting a traditional parent family: mother/father against the outcries of "bigotry"! (wait, what?) from Elton John and his "husband" David Furnish who themselves also had a mother and father. They demand the "right" to be celebrated for their subjecting two boys to a motherless "marriage". Females are just breeders, things, unimportant, unlovable. That is the lesson those two boys will take away from their formative years in their "family"..

Save of course that denying marriage to gays has no relevance nor effect on what you're lamenting about: one gender parents. If a lesbian couple isn't allowed to marry, its not like their children suddenly have opposite gender parents. All it does is guarantee that those children will never have married parents.

Which benefits these children in no way. Which you know. And harms them severely. Which you also know.

Why would we ever implement your proposals when they hurt children and don't help them? I can't think of a single reason.

 

[Steinlight]

I am pretty sure having a discussion on the commodification of the womb is bigoted, best not discuss it or we might seriously hurt some pretentious faggot's feelings.

 

[Silhouette]

I am pretty sure having a discussion on the commodification of the womb is bigoted, best not discuss it or we might seriously hurt some pretentious faggot's feelings.

Yes, the message that sends those two boys is horrific. Day in and day out as they grow, the implied lesson is "females are disposable baby machines, not worthy of love or other value in the adult world."

Gee I can't wait to see where this experiment will leave us socially and psychologically in 30 years. I predict a sharp rise in the number of serial killers. Because they think just about exactly the same way about women...

This new division and formative environment for kids will be raising men who regard women as cattle only, and women who regard men as service stallions only. If the child happens to be the opposite gender of the gay "parents", the child will grow to embody the daily unspoken lesson "your gender doesn't matter"...ie "YOU don't matter"..

 

[Syriusly]

So you don't want to talk about two famous gay men asserting their beliefs that children need both a mother and a father; like they had. Like everybody had, statistically.

So you are talking to yourself again?

 

[Syriusly]

The fact that you believe gays raising children is something "new" is frankly astonishing. Gays have been raising children for an aburdly long time. Denying them marriage doesn't suddenly make these kids have a mother and father, it only denies their parents a marriage.
How has your marriage been gutted now that gays are marrying? Be specific.

We are talking about how all children over time are "gutted", not adult heteros already married. How children are "gutted" by homosexual marriage

'gutted'?

How are 'all children' gutted by homosexuals marrying?

And what the hell do you mean by 'gutted'- is this some weird allegory- or do you think that all children are literally having their guts removed?

 

[Syriusly]

I am pretty sure having a discussion on the commodification of the womb is bigoted, best not discuss it or we might seriously hurt some pretentious faggot's feelings.

This new division and formative environment for kids will be raising men who regard women as cattle only, and women who regard men as service stallions only. If the child happens to be the opposite gender of the gay "parents", the child will grow to embody the daily unspoken lesson "your gender doesn't matter"...ie "YOU don't matter"..

Odd coming from you- since your message to children is "You don't matter if you are gay" and "You don't matter if your parents are gay"

That is your daily message to homosexuals- both children and adult.