Conservative State Challenge: "The Child-Protective/Fiscal-Future Marriage Act"

[Syriusly]

…for instance perhaps you and your girl friend- can marry- and it is perfectly legal- and it is marriage.

I think my wife of twenty years would rightfully object to my having a girlfriend, much less to marrying that girlfriend.

So, in fact, would the laws everywhere in this nation, which only allow me to be in one marriage at a time.

Just like healthy sane homosexual and heterosexual's can marry.

There is no such thing as a sane homosexual. Homosexuality is inherently an insane and defective condition.

Preventing homosexual couples who have children from marrying accomplishes exactly one thing: it prevents those children from having married parents.

And that causes harm to those children.

And apparently that is what you want.

Allowing homosexual couples to “marry”, and allowing them to have custody, also denies those children a genuine set of married parents, and ultimately causes them harm. That is not what I want. You're the one who is defending this abuse of children, not I. You're the one who is overtly willing and eager to sacrifice the wellbeing of children, for the sake of a perverted and evil agenda.

How? How does it deny a single child a 'genuine set of married parents'?

These two men have adopted a total of 6 children, all of them severely handicapped- abandoned by their biological parents.

No one else wanted these kids.

Tell me how preventing these men from marrying benefits a single child.

Anywhere.

All it does is harm their children.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

How? How does it deny a single child a 'genuine set of married parents'?


View attachment 50884

These two men have adopted a total of 6 children, all of them severely handicapped- abandoned by their biological parents.

No one else wanted these kids.

Tell me how preventing these men from marrying benefits a single child.

Anywhere.

All it does is harm their children.

Do any of these children have a mother?

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and children aren't implied parties to anyone's marriage. That's more of Sil's pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[Skylar]

As I have explained- your position helps not a single child- your position does not magically make the children of gay parents suddenly have June and Ward Cleaver as their married parents.

All your position does is advocate for these children not to have married parents.

Because you prefer the children of gay parents to be harmed- rather than letting them have married parents.

He's not alone. The Roman Catholic Pope also prefers children have a mother and father only in a marriage.

Any child who has two gays "married" in their home also is a child who does not have married parents, always, 100% of the time. "Gay marriage" guarantees that any child in that home is without married parents 100% of the time since the word "parents" can only mean one man and one woman.

Or will you now be redefining the word "parents" without children having legal representation at the table and ignoring their cries of protest, like the Supreme Court ignored their amicus briefs to that very point last Spring and in June?

You do realize that 'children' collectively have never once been represented in any Supreme Court case, ever, right? That your imaginary 'requirement' that 'children collectively' must have representation was meaningless gibberish? That no such 'requirement' exists?

The courts have explicitly found that denying marriage to same sex parents harms and humiliates their children:

Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Obergefell v. Hodges

So we have your imaginary pseudo-legal 'requirements' that don't actually exist on one side.....an the explicit findings of the Supreme Court on the other.

Guess which are predictive of future legal outcomes?