A Poll Businesses Boycotting Laws Protecting Christians Might Want To Look At First..

[Silhouette]

Yes, it is the norm. But being the norm does not, in any way shape or form, mean it is what will happen in every case. Nor should it.

Exceptions do not have the right to demand membership to the Rule.

Children can't have their contractual provision in marriage to provide them with both a mother and father, ripped away for life by a brand new contract that imprisons them away from that original provision. A man can never be a mother. A woman can never be a father. Pretending to be one of those things isn't going to fool the kids. It's only going to make the absence of the real thing twice as painful to endure..

 

[mdk]

Yes, it is the norm. But being the norm does not, in any way shape or form, mean it is what will happen in every case. Nor should it.

Exceptions do not have the right to demand membership to the Rule.

Children can't have their contractual provision in marriage to provide them with both a mother and father, ripped away for life by a brand new contract that imprisons them away from that original provision. A man can never be a mother. A woman can never be a father. Pretending to be one of those things isn't going to fool the kids. It's only going to make the absence of the real thing twice as painful to endure..

Not a single state recognizes children as a party to a marriage contract. Not one. Your entire argument is based on a delusion and the instant your argument effects straight people your standard doesn't apply anymore. Funny, that.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, it is the norm. But being the norm does not, in any way shape or form, mean it is what will happen in every case. Nor should it.

Exceptions do not have the right to demand membership to the Rule.

Children can't have their contractual provision in marriage to provide them with both a mother and father, ripped away for life by a brand new contract that imprisons them away from that original provision. A man can never be a mother. A woman can never be a father. Pretending to be one of those things isn't going to fool the kids. It's only going to make the absence of the real thing twice as painful to endure..

Considering that 40% of children born today are born to single mothers, your argument seems to be worrying about the wrong thing. Whether there is a man and a woman, two women, or two men, the child will be better off with 2 parents than with only one.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, it is the norm. But being the norm does not, in any way shape or form, mean it is what will happen in every case. Nor should it.

Exceptions do not have the right to demand membership to the Rule.

Children can't have their contractual provision in marriage to provide them with both a mother and father, ripped away for life by a brand new contract that imprisons them away from that original provision. A man can never be a mother. A woman can never be a father. Pretending to be one of those things isn't going to fool the kids. It's only going to make the absence of the real thing twice as painful to endure..

Also, what I was talking about in the comment you quoted was another poster's insistence that children have a natural right to be raised by the two people who created him or her. It was not about opposite gender parents, but about saying that all kids must be raised by the two individuals who conceived them.

 

[Silhouette]

Also, what I was talking about in the comment you quoted was another poster's insistence that children have a natural right to be raised by the two people who created him or her. It was not about opposite gender parents, but about saying that all kids must be raised by the two individuals who conceived them.

Sorry, that has never been my argument. I simply said "mom and dad"...natural or adoptive. The crucial components being one of each gender to serve as role models in marriage (children come in both genders)....the reason marriage was created over a thousand years ago incidentally... That's an implied contractual enjoyment originally created for children and maintained that way for over a thousand years until last Summer....

...without representation for children being present at the Hearing. Which is against lawful proceedings in contract revisions.

 

[Moonglow]

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

Note "Anti LGBT" = Pro-Christian

Businesses including Microsoft, Wells Fargo, and Apple previously signed a joint statement to argue that anti-LGBT bills are bad...Several companies spoke out against the Indiana legislation, including Yelp, Angie's List, and Salesforce. Angie's List even canceled a planned expansion in the state.... Businesses Denounce North Carolina's Antigay Law | Advocate.com

I believe Dow and Disney and American Airlines are also boycotting bills that protect people who feel it's important for children to have both a mother and father (see poll and logical deduction below)..but I'm not entirely certain they are still on board with offending the 90% who are silently opposed to the cult of LGBT..

So if you too believe like 90% of Americans that it's important for a child to have both a mother and father (you are against gay marriage) or if people hacking off healthy organs to play-act at the opposite gender, while never actually becoming the opposite gender is insane, then you know which companies to avoid buying products from. If you have a choice, choose another business that is friendlier to people who believe sanity is important..

Taken from post #31 Here: Shining a light in a dark place.

‘Wicked’ composer bans all performances in North Carolina over anti-LGBT law

Isolate the hate.

OK, 90% of Americans "hate" the concept at least of gay marriage...and most likely also the concept of amputating healthy organs and forcing society to play along with deep mental delusions in a game of pretend.

...business boycotters need to understand the math behind who ACTUALLY supports the cult of LGBT and who in their private thoughts are saying WTF??? If I was a CEO, I'd sit up in my chair and notice a poll result of 90% anywhere: Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

I think you will find that the majority of people are supportive or dont give a shit. Your "poll" is comedy gold.

So you're saying polls aren't accurate then? (As of today's date and time) 92 people voted in the poll and the results are running 90% +/- that people think having BOTH a mother and father is "important". Are you saying those same people are somehow not aware that "gay marriage" denies one or the other to children for life? I tend to think people, even the dullest, are capable of drawing that logical connection. And the poll is important because it helps people realize the real reason behind their private reservations about "gay marriage"...and all the other weird shit attached to the LGBT cult label...like trannies.

You think actual poll results are "comedy". A business though that banks on polls and opinions may not. So, there you go..

 

[Moonglow]

90% of the respondents in that poll believe Bat Boy is real. Sure it doesn't actually mention Bat Boy but if one makes the logical jump. lol

Well if you're a company and "Bat Boy" is important to 90% of people, then you'd damn well better exhaust logical, even indirect, connections to Bat Boy and how people might be thinking about him. Unless you're a business that is more concerned with blind social causes than a bottom line? Of course, stockholders could sue Officers for squandered revenues. But like Alfred E. Newman always said, "What, me worry?"

Ninety-four people voting in a message board straw poll is not 90% of America. You are free to boycott any company you wish b/c they don't hate gays with the passion you desire. Best of luck! Do not be surprised when it fails miserably.

Yes, I am sure stock holders will start suing officers for not being anti-queer enough any day now. lol

That boycott of Chik Fil La was a resounding success...for Chik Fil La. Boycotts are stupid and a waste of effort

yeah, cause they are way over priced...

 

[mdk]

Sorry, that has never been my argument. I simply said "mom and dad"...natural or adoptive. The crucial components being one of each gender to serve as role models in marriage (children come in both genders)....the reason marriage was created over a thousand years ago incidentally... That's an implied contractual enjoyment originally created for children and maintained that way for over a thousand years until last Summer....

...without representation for children being present at the Hearing. Which is against lawful proceedings in contract revisions

Show us where children are an implied party to a marriage contract in any state? You can't b/c it doesn't exist. You know you're full shit, we know you're full shit, and, that is why this delusional charade isn't about convincing anyone but yourself.

 

[Syriusly]

Also, what I was talking about in the comment you quoted was another poster's insistence that children have a natural right to be raised by the two people who created him or her. It was not about opposite gender parents, but about saying that all kids must be raised by the two individuals who conceived them.

Sorry, that has never been my argument. I simply said "mom and dad"...natural or adoptive. The crucial components being one of each gender to serve as role models in marriage (children come in both genders)....the reason marriage was created over a thousand years ago incidentally... T

Why exactly did you deprive your children of the male role model in marriage?

 

[Skylar]

Yes, it is the norm. But being the norm does not, in any way shape or form, mean it is what will happen in every case. Nor should it.

Exceptions do not have the right to demand membership to the Rule.

Children can't have their contractual provision in marriage to provide them with both a mother and father, ripped away for life by a brand new contract that imprisons them away from that original provision. A man can never be a mother. A woman can never be a father. Pretending to be one of those things isn't going to fool the kids. It's only going to make the absence of the real thing twice as painful to endure..

Not outside your imagination they haven't. Remember, no law nor court ruling recognizes that children are parties to the marriage of their parents. Not implied parties, not explicit parties, not third party beneficiaries. None of it.

You imagined it all. And your imagination has nothing to do with the law, any court ruling, any contract or any marriage.

You can't get around that.

 

[Skylar]

Also, what I was talking about in the comment you quoted was another poster's insistence that children have a natural right to be raised by the two people who created him or her. It was not about opposite gender parents, but about saying that all kids must be raised by the two individuals who conceived them.

Sorry, that has never been my argument. I simply said "mom and dad"...natural or adoptive. The crucial components being one of each gender to serve as role models in marriage (children come in both genders)....the reason marriage was created over a thousand years ago incidentally...

More imaginative nonsense. Marriage was about property. Not about children. You've made up an imaginary basis of marriage just like you've made up imaginary 'contractual obligations' that have never existed nor are recognized by any law or court ruling.

Imagine to your heart's content. It has exactly jack shit to do with the actual law, actual marriage, or the world the rest of us live in.

That's an implied contractual enjoyment originally created for children and maintained that way for over a thousand years until last Summer....

Then show us the law or court ruling recognizing that children are implied parties to the marriage of their parents.

You can't. As you made it all up. Which obligates no one to do anything.

...without representation for children being present at the Hearing. Which is against lawful proceedings in contract revisions.

More pseudo-legal gibberish. No law nor court recognizes children as implied parties to the marriage of their parents. Killing your nonsense.

Nor is there any 'requirement' that 'all children' have a representative at a Supreme Court hearing. You made that up too. Back in reality, 'all children' have never had a representative at a Supreme Court hearing. Killing your nonsense again.

.....do you take some comfort in repeating these same silly little lies to yourself?