Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[Luddly Neddite]

Women who have kids without having a spouse are bad parents. Their kids grow up to inhabit state penitentiaries. They are the main cause of all the social pathologies of this nation.

Its takes two to produce a child and the responsibility for each and every child should be shared equally between those two. As far as I know, men cannot be forced to BE fathers.

There are good single parents - both mothers and fathers. And, there are bad parents - both mothers and fathers.

Your blanket statement, then dead beat dads are the cause of "all the social pathologies of this nation" is ridiculous but that's is not what this thread is about.

 

[beagle9]

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..

Marriage may have begun as a religious construct, but it is now also a civil construct, separate from religion, sanctioned by government.

Maybe that's the problem. Maybe we should do away with the government-given perks of marriage, and simply let it be a private ceremony. Anyone can marry anyone, and the law won't touch it.

Otherwise, it's discriminatory to prevent gay people from marrying the person of their choice, just like anti-miscegenation laws were discriminatory to prevent the same thing.

Why did you cut out what I wrote concerning Numbers-Chapter 12, verses 1 through 16 ? It addresses nicely that God has no problem with marriage, just as long as it stays between a man and a woman as according to his word. This is why the libs are trying everything they can to run God out of this nation also, because he won't conform to them, and they don't like that.

 

[Silhouette]

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..

Marriage may have begun as a religious construct, but it is now also a civil construct, separate from religion, sanctioned by government.

Maybe that's the problem. Maybe we should do away with the government-given perks of marriage, and simply let it be a private ceremony. Anyone can marry anyone, and the law won't touch it.

Otherwise, it's discriminatory to prevent gay people from marrying the person of their choice, just like anti-miscegenation laws were discriminatory to prevent the same thing.

Why did you cut out what I wrote concerning Numbers-Chapter 12, verses 1 through 16 ? It addresses nicely that God has no problem with marriage, just as long as it stays between a man and a woman as according to his word. This is why the libs are trying everything they can to run God out of this nation also, because he won't conform to them, and they don't like that.

Yes and this is why it is particularly pernicious when some of them here profess to be gay but then say "they're OK with churches not performing gay marriages"...this was said over at this thread and is being discussed on this page there: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 139 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The reason they say this is twofold:

1. To shroud the public from knowing their true intentions once the ink is dry on any federal protection their cult might gain on delivering the word "marriage" its final blow...and...

2. To water down the very otherwise harrowing results of the poll on the thread in that link above. To make it appear "as if" "some of the 82% who said they are adamantly or otherwise against gay marriage having to be performed in churches are somehow also avid supporters of gay marriage".

Meanwhile they still want the angle of saying that doing gay stuff is = race. But you'd never catch them saying "we think churches shouldn't marry black people".

And this is why I cornered the one gay poster who said they are gay, gay "married" but also for churches not having to perform gay weddings....oh...but also "gay is the same legally as race". Then I said "no, you're saying it isn't legally the same as race when you say that churches don't have to perform them".

Then as usual came the ad hominems, strawmen and a complete dropping of the topic blaming me. And none of my questions as to the above answered. They're bummin' that I nailed them so swiftly and they're hoping those questions will "go away".

 

[RKMBrown]

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..

Marriage may have begun as a religious construct, but it is now also a civil construct, separate from religion, sanctioned by government.

Maybe that's the problem. Maybe we should do away with the government-given perks of marriage, and simply let it be a private ceremony. Anyone can marry anyone, and the law won't touch it.

Otherwise, it's discriminatory to prevent gay people from marrying the person of their choice, just like anti-miscegenation laws were discriminatory to prevent the same thing.

Not really, the marriage license is not the same thing as the religious construct. You don't need religion to get a marriage license, and you don't necessarily need a marriage license to get a religious marriage. They really are two separate things. Granted, a lot of folk get confused about the two topics and often use the terms interchangeably.

 

[Silhouette]

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..

Marriage may have begun as a religious construct, but it is now also a civil construct, separate from religion, sanctioned by government.

Maybe that's the problem. Maybe we should do away with the government-given perks of marriage, and simply let it be a private ceremony. Anyone can marry anyone, and the law won't touch it.

Otherwise, it's discriminatory to prevent gay people from marrying the person of their choice, just like anti-miscegenation laws were discriminatory to prevent the same thing.

Not really, the marriage license is not the same thing as the religious construct. You don't need religion to get a marriage license, and you don't necessarily need a marriage license to get a religious marriage. They really are two separate things. Granted, a lot of folk get confused about the two topics and often use the terms interchangeably.

There is one thing "folk" don't get confused about: the civil rights of children to the best incentives for marriage a state's discreet community can protect for them.

It will come down not to religion vs gay marriage, but children [and the society that perpetuates generationally through their upbringing] vs gay marriage. Check the title of this thread.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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..

Marriage may have begun as a religious construct, but it is now also a civil construct, separate from religion, sanctioned by government.

Maybe that's the problem. Maybe we should do away with the government-given perks of marriage, and simply let it be a private ceremony. Anyone can marry anyone, and the law won't touch it.

Otherwise, it's discriminatory to prevent gay people from marrying the person of their choice, just like anti-miscegenation laws were discriminatory to prevent the same thing.

Not really, the marriage license is not the same thing as the religious construct. You don't need religion to get a marriage license, and you don't necessarily need a marriage license to get a religious marriage. They really are two separate things. Granted, a lot of folk get confused about the two topics and often use the terms interchangeably.

But, the religious ceremony is just for show. Only the civil contract is legally binding.

 

[ricechickie]

Not really, the marriage license is not the same thing as the religious construct. You don't need religion to get a marriage license, and you don't necessarily need a marriage license to get a religious marriage. They really are two separate things. Granted, a lot of folk get confused about the two topics and often use the terms interchangeably.

\

That's what I was trying to say. You said it better.

 

[RKMBrown]

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..

Marriage may have begun as a religious construct, but it is now also a civil construct, separate from religion, sanctioned by government.

Maybe that's the problem. Maybe we should do away with the government-given perks of marriage, and simply let it be a private ceremony. Anyone can marry anyone, and the law won't touch it.

Otherwise, it's discriminatory to prevent gay people from marrying the person of their choice, just like anti-miscegenation laws were discriminatory to prevent the same thing.

Not really, the marriage license is not the same thing as the religious construct. You don't need religion to get a marriage license, and you don't necessarily need a marriage license to get a religious marriage. They really are two separate things. Granted, a lot of folk get confused about the two topics and often use the terms interchangeably.

But, the religious ceremony is just for show. Only the civil contract is legally binding.

My church marriage meant and still means more to me than the license. So, I guess it depends on what is more important to you. I could give a shit if govco tossed my license, my wife and I would still consider ourselves married.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Children do deserve good parents.

Let's all commit ourselves to being good parents ourselves and the liberty of child abusers, the many hetero and in comparison the few homo.

The fact remains that LGBT and straight parents can and do excellent jobs as parents.

As an aside, feel more than sympathy for Sil. I feel empathy, because I know. Sil, it will get better if you want it to, but dreams without goals and efforts will not happen. Forgive me any meanness I have shown you. I will do better.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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..

Marriage may have begun as a religious construct, but it is now also a civil construct, separate from religion, sanctioned by government.

Maybe that's the problem. Maybe we should do away with the government-given perks of marriage, and simply let it be a private ceremony. Anyone can marry anyone, and the law won't touch it.

Otherwise, it's discriminatory to prevent gay people from marrying the person of their choice, just like anti-miscegenation laws were discriminatory to prevent the same thing.

Not really, the marriage license is not the same thing as the religious construct. You don't need religion to get a marriage license, and you don't necessarily need a marriage license to get a religious marriage. They really are two separate things. Granted, a lot of folk get confused about the two topics and often use the terms interchangeably.

But, the religious ceremony is just for show. Only the civil contract is legally binding.

My church marriage meant and still means more to me than the license. So, I guess it depends on what is more important to you. I could give a shit if govco tossed my license, my wife and I would still consider ourselves married.

That's not what I said. I did not address "feelings".

Civil marriage is a legally binding contract.

A religious ceremony is not.

That is simply a statement of fact and has nothing to do with how one feels about it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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..

Marriage may have begun as a religious construct, but it is now also a civil construct, separate from religion, sanctioned by government.

Maybe that's the problem. Maybe we should do away with the government-given perks of marriage, and simply let it be a private ceremony. Anyone can marry anyone, and the law won't touch it.

Otherwise, it's discriminatory to prevent gay people from marrying the person of their choice, just like anti-miscegenation laws were discriminatory to prevent the same thing.

Not really, the marriage license is not the same thing as the religious construct. You don't need religion to get a marriage license, and you don't necessarily need a marriage license to get a religious marriage. They really are two separate things. Granted, a lot of folk get confused about the two topics and often use the terms interchangeably.

But, the religious ceremony is just for show. Only the civil contract is legally binding.

My church marriage meant and still means more to me than the license. So, I guess it depends on what is more important to you. I could give a shit if govco tossed my license, my wife and I would still consider ourselves married.

That's not what I said. I did not address "feelings".

Civil marriage is a legally binding contract.

A religious ceremony is not.

That is simply a statement of fact and has nothing to do with how one feels about it.

Your point is meaningless, except to you. It has no meaning for the rest, I believe.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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..

Marriage may have begun as a religious construct, but it is now also a civil construct, separate from religion, sanctioned by government.

Maybe that's the problem. Maybe we should do away with the government-given perks of marriage, and simply let it be a private ceremony. Anyone can marry anyone, and the law won't touch it.

Otherwise, it's discriminatory to prevent gay people from marrying the person of their choice, just like anti-miscegenation laws were discriminatory to prevent the same thing.

Not really, the marriage license is not the same thing as the religious construct. You don't need religion to get a marriage license, and you don't necessarily need a marriage license to get a religious marriage. They really are two separate things. Granted, a lot of folk get confused about the two topics and often use the terms interchangeably.

But, the religious ceremony is just for show. Only the civil contract is legally binding.

My church marriage meant and still means more to me than the license. So, I guess it depends on what is more important to you. I could give a shit if govco tossed my license, my wife and I would still consider ourselves married.

That's not what I said. I did not address "feelings".

Civil marriage is a legally binding contract.

A religious ceremony is not.

That is simply a statement of fact and has nothing to do with how one feels about it.

Your point is meaningless, except to you. It has no meaning for the rest, I believe.

Perhaps so.

I was just making a comment in reply to RKMBrown's.

People do confuse the two.

 

[Silhouette]

Children do deserve good parents.

Let's all commit ourselves to being good parents ourselves and the liberty of child abusers, the many hetero and in comparison the few homo.

The fact remains that LGBT and straight parents can and do excellent jobs as parents.

As an aside, feel more than sympathy for Sil. I feel empathy, because I know. Sil, it will get better if you want it to, but dreams without goals and efforts will not happen. Forgive me any meanness I have shown you. I will do better.

Just one problem with your "per capita child molestor demographic" . The Mayo Clinic begs to differ. Of your 2% gay-lurker demographic, here's the number of molestations they're responsible for in the entire [100% of all children molested] population. Do the math:

http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
Mayo Clinic Special Article 2007

Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles by whether they are attracted to only male children (homosexual pedophilia), female children (heterosexual pedophilia), or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia).3,6,10,29 The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20 times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, as you well know, your 'data' has been competently rebuked elsewhere.

Marriage equality is going to happen.

Yes, I do understand what you are feeling personally, and I feel for you more than you can know.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, as you well know, your 'data' has been competently rebuked elsewhere.

Marriage equality is going to happen.

Yes, I do understand what you are feeling personally, and I feel for you more than you can know.

As far as I know, the Mayo Clinic's data and publication on the profiles of child molestors has neither been retracted nor removed from the internet. Check the link to see if it still works. Unless you are attacking the credibility of the Mayo Clinic? I didn't publish those facts. They did.

I feel for you that you cannot look the truth of our nation's leading researchers in the eye and have to resort to ad hominems and strawmen to divert other people from looking at it.

 

[hazlnut]

With 32 states pushing the US Supreme Court to make a final decision on gay marriage, how heavily will the welfare of children weigh in on that debate?

Are children a part of the gay marriage discussion? Well, the Europeans think so... European Court Rules Gay Marriage not a Human Right ... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

What do you believe? Vote the poll.

#1 Children can't get married. -- so your premise is moronic.

#2 Having gay parents has been show to have a positive effect on children.

 

[elektra]

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.

Parents can be male or female, adoptive or genetic. Marriage is not a requirement for being a parent.

Are you mentally handicapped?

Yes, parents can be anything YOU and THE GOVERNMENT, DICTATE

 

[elektra]

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.


Nonsense.


States have no 'right' to disadvantage a class of persons predicated solely on animus toward that class of persons. (Romer v. Evans (1996)).


Having failed to deny gay Americans their civil liberties in the courts, those hostile to same-sex couples seek instead to contrive and propagate the lie that children living in homes headed by same-sex parents are somehow 'at risk,' when in fact nothing could be further from the truth, and to attempt to do so is nothing more than desperate demagoguery.


Children's rights are in no way 'violated' when living in a home headed by same-sex parents; children need love and attention to flourish – and that can be provided by any loving, attentive parent, be it in a single parent home, opposite-sex parent home, or same-sex parent home.

Denied, we have to give special privileges to people who, literally define themselves first by their sexuality?

How are two men, one who thinks he is a woman and uses his butt, his waste canal, a part of his body that is used to dispose of waste from the body, how is using the waste canal, the rectum as a sex organ, a defining characteristic to be a mother?

How is a man, that uses his rectum as a sex organ a defining characteristic of being a mother. I would say someone so broken-headed, wrong-thinking, needs a little different help, then lets say, the supreme court defining this man as MOM.

Yes, and I know your response will be most likely this is not about sex. Which means simply the Homosexual's and those who love them can not allow all the facts to be discussed in this debate.

If the Homosexuals and Activists can not control what is said, what is allowed into the debate, then they lose.

 

[ricechickie]

Denied, we have to give special privileges to people who, literally define themselves first by their sexuality?

How are two men, one who thinks he is a woman and uses his butt, his waste canal, a part of his body that is used to dispose of waste from the body, how is using the waste canal, the rectum as a sex organ, a defining characteristic to be a mother?

How is a man, that uses his rectum as a sex organ a defining characteristic of being a mother. I would say someone so broken-headed, wrong-thinking, needs a little different help, then lets say, the supreme court defining this man as MOM.

Yes, and I know your response will be most likely this is not about sex. Which means simply the Homosexual's and those who love them can not allow all the facts to be discussed in this debate.

If the Homosexuals and Activists can not control what is said, what is allowed into the debate, then they lose.

Do you know that some heterosexual couples practice anal sex?

Are they too "broken-headed" and "wrong-thinking" to be parents?

 

[Silhouette]

Denied, we have to give special privileges to people who, literally define themselves first by their sexuality?

How are two men, one who thinks he is a woman and uses his butt, his waste canal, a part of his body that is used to dispose of waste from the body, how is using the waste canal, the rectum as a sex organ, a defining characteristic to be a mother?

How is a man, that uses his rectum as a sex organ a defining characteristic of being a mother. I would say someone so broken-headed, wrong-thinking, needs a little different help, then lets say, the supreme court defining this man as MOM.

Yes, and I know your response will be most likely this is not about sex. Which means simply the Homosexual's and those who love them can not allow all the facts to be discussed in this debate.

If the Homosexuals and Activists can not control what is said, what is allowed into the debate, then they lose.

Do you know that some heterosexual couples practice anal sex?

Are they too "broken-headed" and "wrong-thinking" to be parents?

I would say yes, given all we know about HIV/AIDS