Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[bripat9643]

We should call Oranges, Lemons.

Lemons sell for more and everything has the same rights.

I should not suffer the price of oranges when I sell them, the are equal to lemons.

Why would anyone care, I make more money for Oranges, even though you thought you bought Lemons.

They are both citrus so it's only equal to call oranges, lemons.

Yeah cause lemons and oranges can't both be fruits there's only room on this lemon phobic planet for orange fruit.

His point was that you cannot call people who do gay sex "father/mother" "husband/wife". For they are not and will never be. States have a right to incentivized father/mother husband/wife. And this right is theirs for the sake of children's welfare. Children have a right to have father/mother be incentivized and the only legal couple who may raise them. Children's rights trump any alleged "gay rights" when it comes to marriage.

(1) States have an oblifation to serve their citizens and follow the laws of the land.

(2) Terms can be and will be changed if enough people agree and adopt the usage, which seems to be happening in the USA

(3) Children always have the right to be loved and cared for by parents with no obligation, Sil, to have you feel about these matters.

None of that has the slightest significance to this debate.

 

[bripat9643]

We should call Oranges, Lemons.

Lemons sell for more and everything has the same rights.

I should not suffer the price of oranges when I sell them, the are equal to lemons.

Why would anyone care, I make more money for Oranges, even though you thought you bought Lemons.

They are both citrus so it's only equal to call oranges, lemons.

Yeah cause lemons and oranges can't both be fruits there's only room on this lemon phobic planet for orange fruit.

His point was that you cannot call people who do gay sex "father/mother" "husband/wife". For they are not and will never be. States have a right to incentivized father/mother husband/wife. And this right is theirs for the sake of children's welfare. Children have a right to have father/mother be incentivized and the only legal couple who may raise them. Children's rights trump any alleged "gay rights" when it comes to marriage.

there is no law stating a child must have a Father and a mother. You are making things up

Pretending they don't get the point is a favored liberal debate tactic. What the libturds don't seem to realize is that only stupid people are fooled.

 

[Rikurzhen]

If you put an heirloom necklace into an indestructible safe and then lose the combination to that safe, do you still, in a meaningful way, still possess that necklace? Or if you're Rose Dawson, a surviving passenger from the Titanic, and you own the Heart of the Ocean diamond necklace, do you still own that necklace after you've dropped it overboard and it now rests on the bottom of the Atlantic?

My point is that, of course, you are what your DNA makes you, but your ancestral heritage and knowing who you are are dependent on you being able to contextualize the abstract. For instance, if you're adopted you still have your dna but your birth siblings who are raised by your natural parents also know that mom got breast cancer and the daughters are extra vigilant as adults while you are unaware of the risk you face. This is just one aspect, health, but the more meaningful aspect to those who've been hurt this way lies in personality and family and connections to past generations. That's all stolen from these people and it decouples them from knowing their place in the world.

I can't speak for others, but knowing my risk for breast cancer or Alzheimers is the least of my heritage.

What I know is that I come from a long line of farmers, and that the men in my father's family line like to give their name to their sons as a middle name. And that my grandmother was famous for her great pancakes. Or that a great-great-grandmother had no real interest in her family, but lived to play Pinochle. Those stories mean more to me.

Do you know any women who rebelled against the role model set by their mother, struck out to live a different type of life and have a different personality, then when morning they wake up, look in the mirror, and realize that she's become her mother? Personality is the same or same enough, particular quirks, body shape or facial shape, etc. Kids see their parents as adults, obviously, but they also see their parents when their parents are at a particular point in their lives. The kids will also travel that same path, they wuill one day be 40 years old. IF the kid's memory is good, they may well be able to connect what they're doing at 40 to what mom or dad did when they were 40. That awareness is rooted in genetics, not learned behaviors. Most of the behaviors we have which define us are not learned within the home, they're inherited. Out of the home influences, are of course, learned behaviors.

 

[ricechickie]

You have to be quite stupid to believe your genetic inheritance doesn't have a big effect on you.

I am not denying genetic inheritance. I'm saying that there is an ongoing debate about nature vs. nurture.

I place less value on my genetic inheritance than Rikurzhen does, apparently.

And people can do research and learn about their genetic history, much of the time. However, I don't think it destroys a person's life to be unaware of one's genetics.

 

[Plasmaball]

Here's my gay marriage conversation:

It's fucked up and wrong. The end.

Certainly true when it comes to childrens' civil rights.

wait you are trying to use the civil right argument for kids, but disagree that the gays rights have no standing?
I love human beings. Twist anything in order to support your cause and have zero shame in it.

Marriage is not a civil right.

awe look at you trying to look smart.

 

[ricechickie]

By the way, another thing that occurred to me is that there are now genetic tests that a person can do......to determine if they have genes for various ailments, to determine their racial make-up, and I don't know what all. Could this take some of the sting out of not knowing one's biological place in the world?

 

[Rikurzhen]

You have to be quite stupid to believe your genetic inheritance doesn't have a big effect on you.

I am not denying genetic inheritance. I'm saying that there is an ongoing debate about nature vs. nurture.

I place less value on my genetic inheritance than Rikurzhen does, apparently.

And people can do research and learn about their genetic history, much of the time. However, I don't think it destroys a person's life to be unaware of one's genetics.

Then you need to talk to some people who feel that their lives were destroyed by, in effect, becoming "unpeople."

Earlier in this thread I appealed to analogy - a pregnant mother decides to have a surgeon amputate one of the limbs on her fetus. The baby will not know a life that is different. Some children will grow up and be completely fine with having only one leg. Other children will be severely impacted by their disability. The parent has no way of knowing how the child will be impacted but they're gambling, like with Russian Roulette, that their child will be completely fine being born with only one leg.

This gamble takes place because the parent is placing their own desire to have a child above the welfare, and the human rights, of the child. That child's human rights are not owned by the parent and can't be bargained away by the parent, no more that a parent has the right to sell their child into slavery.

 

[Rikurzhen]

By the way, another thing that occurred to me is that there are now genetic tests that a person can do......to determine if they have genes for various ailments, to determine their racial make-up, and I don't know what all. Could this take some of the sting out of not knowing one's biological place in the world?

The richness here is found in being raised by and knowing personally, the mother and father who conceived you. That's what the big deal about those switched babies is all about, that's why the Argentine Stolen Babies episode is so traumatic to many:

BUENOS AIRES—A determined group of women working to find babies stolen from dissidents during a 1970s Argentine dictatorship were celebrating after the head of their organization found her long-lost grandson.

"I didn't want to die without hugging him," Estela Barnes de Carlotto, who is 83 and leads the Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo, said on Tuesday.

Local media reported that Ms. de Carlotto hadn't been reunited with her grandson as of Wednesday afternoon. She said there wasn't a need to rush. Still, she was clearly excited about having achieved her objective: to find the grandson Ms. De Carlotto always believed had been alive.

A 36-year-old man who had gone by the name Ignacio Hurban had been stolen from Ms. de Carlotto's daughter, who had been pregnant when kidnapped in 1977 by the military junta then ruling Argentina. Born the next year, the boy she had named Guido had been given to a childless couple that raised him in the farm belt outside Buenos Aires.

In June, curious about his family history, Mr. Hurban approached the Grandmothers' group and provided a blood test that later confirmed he was the son of Laura Carlotto and her partner, Walmire Montoya.

"Our hope is to find more," said Alan Iud, the lawyer who heads the Grandmothers legal team, in an interview on Wednesday. He said families of 312 victims of that brutal 1970s regime have donated blood samples to a genetics bank, hoping one day to find the missing children of loved ones.

"The empty portraits that are waiting for him will have his picture," Ms. De Carlotto said of her grandson. "He is a good boy who sought me out."​

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yeah, marriage is a civil right ~ look it up, little buddy.

The issue is about marriage, not sexuality.

The moron who is mixing marriage rights with some silly concept of mutilating their children is an exemplar typical of reactionary far right distortion of reality.

 

[bripat9643]

Here's my gay marriage conversation:

It's fucked up and wrong. The end.

Certainly true when it comes to childrens' civil rights.

wait you are trying to use the civil right argument for kids, but disagree that the gays rights have no standing?
I love human beings. Twist anything in order to support your cause and have zero shame in it.

Marriage is not a civil right.

awe look at you trying to look smart.

You couldn't look more like an imbecile if you tried.

 

[Plasmaball]

Here's my gay marriage conversation:

It's fucked up and wrong. The end.

Certainly true when it comes to childrens' civil rights.

wait you are trying to use the civil right argument for kids, but disagree that the gays rights have no standing?
I love human beings. Twist anything in order to support your cause and have zero shame in it.

Marriage is not a civil right.

awe look at you trying to look smart.

You couldn't look more like an imbecile if you tried.

dont worry i have ways to go before i reach your level of stupid

 

[bripat9643]

Here's my gay marriage conversation:

It's fucked up and wrong. The end.

Certainly true when it comes to childrens' civil rights.

wait you are trying to use the civil right argument for kids, but disagree that the gays rights have no standing?
I love human beings. Twist anything in order to support your cause and have zero shame in it.

Marriage is not a civil right.

awe look at you trying to look smart.

You couldn't look more like an imbecile if you tried.

dont worry i have ways to go before i reach your level of stupid

This debate has reached terminal velocity in terms of infantile taunts.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

No, kids are not part of the equation of marriage. And your poll is skewed and biased.

If the children are in a bad home, get them out. Whether or not the parent is single or gay doesn't mean anything.

Kids are the central focus of marriage. Society subsidizes marriage. I have absolutely zero interest in subsidizing someone's marriage just because they love someone. Love is a personal matter, but social support involves an obligation.

As for pulling kids from homes, we've already gone too far on that front - child social service agents are often causing more family damage than they prevent. Normal parents are better than homosexual parents.

Your post is all over the place. I'm not even sure what point you were trying to make.

I was just trying to respond to the points you raised. Children are at the heart of marriage, so I disagreeing with your claim that children have no part of the equation of marriage.

A childless married couple doesn't deserve any recognition or reward or benefit under law from society. We grant these based on the old model of children being a natural outcome of being married. Our laws and social institutions are now out of step with technology and social customs. The fact that you love your spouse is a private affair and isn't deserving of any special benefit from society. Your state of being married doesn't return any benefit to strangers who support you via marriage benefits. When you have children, that's when you're giving something back to society and so also deserve recognition and encouragement and benefit from the rest of us.

Is my argument clearer now?

What "special benefits" are you talking about? Taxes?

If you and I are friends, or cousins, and I give you a $100,000 gift, then you have to pay taxes on that. If your spouse transfers the money to you, no taxes. If you leave me a bequest in your will, I have to pay taxes on that bequest, your spouse doesn't.

You and I both pay social security taxes. If I die and I'm single, that's the end of the benefits. If you die, and you're married, your spouse get's some kind of survivor benefit.

At work, if I was a single guy I'd be paying some kind of premium for health care, but you as a married person get to tack on your spouse for coverage. What does your spouse have to do with our common workplace? Your spouse is nothing to me but now we're in the same risk pool.

There are plenty of benefits that society confers on married people that it doesn't confer on single people. There's no return to society if the only reason you're married is because you love your spouse. Why should I be made poorer so that you can celebrate your love for your spouse?

I could say the same thing about traditional marriage. Why should I, as a straight man, be made more poor just because some other straight couple wants to celebrate their love? "Giving back to society"? Don't make me laugh. I've seen more than my fair share of traditional married couples raising kids, that will no way shape or form, "give back to society". And since when is that a pre-requiset for tax benefits? There is nothing in tax laws that specify "giving back to society" as a condition for qualifying for the Child Tax Credit.

If taxes are that much of a concern of yours when it comes to same sex marriage, then you need to worry more about getting government out of marriage, not stopping people that you don't approve of from getting married.

Children are not the natural outcome of being married.

Throughout history, when people have had sex on a very frequent basis, children are the natural outcome. Someone should have taught you the birds and the bees.

And those people, throughout history, did not need to be married to make that happen.

There are many couples who get married and have no intention of having kids.

They're freeriding on the bargain society has made with married couples. Mostly they're noise in the system.

Again, not their problem. Talk to your government.

And there are many couples who have kids without any intention of getting married.

If I offer to give you $100 and you choose not to take it, I can't force you to accept a benefit. Same applies here.

...........................huh?

To mix a natural biological function with a societal creation of mankind doesn't make any sense.

Sure it does. You have a lunch hour at work, don't you?

Apples and oranges.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rik, son, it doesn't matter, yeah?

This is like the end of DOMA, prop 8, DADT, and the beginning of marriage equality.

You can't stop it.

 

[beagle9]

^^ similar to the argument against interracial marriage.

People didn't want their children to see that kind of race-mixing being flaunted.

I don't know if anyone told you, there is no right to not be offended.

Marriage between a man and woman regardless of their color is not the same thing as gay marriage at all, as it (marriage between a man and a woman) is sanctioned by God as was exampled in the case with Moses when Miriam and Antioch (I think) spoke against Moses marriage, and God punished them for speaking against Moses in this way . Nice try though..

 

[Plasmaball]

Here's my gay marriage conversation:

It's fucked up and wrong. The end.

Certainly true when it comes to childrens' civil rights.

wait you are trying to use the civil right argument for kids, but disagree that the gays rights have no standing?
I love human beings. Twist anything in order to support your cause and have zero shame in it.

Marriage is not a civil right.

awe look at you trying to look smart.

You couldn't look more like an imbecile if you tried.

dont worry i have ways to go before i reach your level of stupid

This debate has reached terminal velocity in terms of infantile taunts.

all tapped out huh...

 

[JakeStarkey]

beagle9, since you are not the chief iman at Congress, who cares.

 

[bripat9643]

Here's my gay marriage conversation:

It's fucked up and wrong. The end.

Certainly true when it comes to childrens' civil rights.

wait you are trying to use the civil right argument for kids, but disagree that the gays rights have no standing?
I love human beings. Twist anything in order to support your cause and have zero shame in it.

Marriage is not a civil right.

awe look at you trying to look smart.

You couldn't look more like an imbecile if you tried.

dont worry i have ways to go before i reach your level of stupid

This debate has reached terminal velocity in terms of infantile taunts.

all tapped out huh...

I'm simply not interested in trading taunts with an obvious idiot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is you in the mirror, bripat.

None of you folks have made sense all day.

You are like the little mouse flipping off the eagle coming to eat it.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I could say the same thing about traditional marriage. Why should I, as a straight man, be made more poor just because some other straight couple wants to celebrate their love? "Giving back to society"? Don't make me laugh. I've seen more than my fair share of traditional married couples raising kids, that will no way shape or form, "give back to society".

What you're doing here is making perfect the enemy of the good.

The best way we know to raise the human capital of children is to raise them within a two parent family. The best vehicle we know for fostering two parent families is to have a man and a woman get married.

If taxes are that much of a concern of yours when it comes to same sex marriage, then you need to worry more about getting government out of marriage, not stopping people that you don't approve of from getting married.

Children are not the natural outcome of being married.

Throughout history, when people have had sex on a very frequent basis, children are the natural outcome. Someone should have taught you the birds and the bees.

And those people, throughout history, did not need to be married to make that happen.

And the human capital development of children skyrockets when they have a mother and a father involved in raising them from childhood to adulthood.

To mix a natural biological function with a societal creation of mankind doesn't make any sense.

Sure it does. You have a lunch hour at work, don't you?

Apples and oranges.

Nope, Apples and Apples. You have a natural biological function which requires you to eat. We have established social customs and institutions which directly address this biological function.