A Simple Question For Those Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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...

 

[Silhouette]

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

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

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.

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.

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

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

^^ 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]

^^ 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

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]

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.

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.

I spoke to soon LOL

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

^^ 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

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.

 

[Circe]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Silhouette]

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]

^^ 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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

[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]

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.

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]

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.

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

Nothing legislative about it.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

"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]

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.

Did you know it's illegal to possess a contract that banishes children away from a necessity;.

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

You lie

As usual.