A Simple Question For Those Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

[Syriusly]

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

It should be irrelevant , but there are no guarantees.

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.

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]

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

It should be irrelevant , but there are no guarantees.

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.

Thank you ! Boss thinks that he's smart and in some ways he is. Maybe more clever than smart though. In reality, he has some really fucked up and strange ideas.

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.

 

[Silhouette]

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!

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]

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

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]

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!

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.

 

[Silhouette]

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]

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]

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.

BS

And just plain stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

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

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]

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

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

 

[Anathema]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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."

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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