Gay Marriages in States Forced by Circuit Courts to Allow Them Are Not Legal

[Silhouette]

All that hot air and you still didn't answer the question. I can make a safe bet they didn't and there are more children that probably are adversely affected by unnatural gay marriage than you care to admit. Gay is a mental disorder.

Then all you have to do is prove that. Either one of those claims. Your religious bigotry is not proof.

Well if I may?

1. Studies have shown children fare best when their blood parents are in the home with them. And millions of years of human history tell us that a father and a mother in the home prepare the child for his own self esteem and ability to interact with both types of genders in the adult world as they find their place in it.

2. It may be harder to prove that "gay is a mental disorder" than it is to prove that what is being done to Thomas Lobel with the blessings of the LGBT community and under the watch of the gay-influenced APA is criminal and mentally deranged procedure and insitutions in addition to the deranged patient. Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[AmericanFirst]

Marriage is not in the Constitution.

Yet it is still a Constitutional right.

The constitutional rights of children to have both blood parents incentivized to be in their home trumps any gays claiming they have rights to marry.

If children have the constitutional right to have both blood parents in their home then we wouldn't allow those parents to divorce.

Stop pretending you care about children.

This is all about fomenting hatred towards homosexuals for you.

Gays are so stupid. Gay is abnormal and should not be raising children.

 

[mdk]

Your right to your perverted religious beliefs does not extend to denying others their rights.

My religious beliefs happen to be the truth, whether you believe so or not.

That claim has been the basis of far too many abuses over history to base laws upon.

The lefts claims are nothing but hot air and bull.

Unfortunately for you, what you call 'hot air and bull' the courts call 'Constitutional Rights"

Gay unnatural marriage is not in the constitution.

This is exactly why a good handful of the Found Fathers were wary of ever including a Bill of Rights in the first place. They knew future generations would foolishly interpret that only the rights specifically enumerated were rights to the exclusion of all others. It seems their fears were justified.

 

[mdk]

Marriage is not in the Constitution.

Yet it is still a Constitutional right.

The constitutional rights of children to have both blood parents incentivized to be in their home trumps any gays claiming they have rights to marry.

If children have the constitutional right to have both blood parents in their home then we wouldn't allow those parents to divorce.

Stop pretending you care about children.

This is all about fomenting hatred towards homosexuals for you.

Gays are so stupid. Gay is abnormal and should not be raising children.

I can't believe the courts haven't been been swayed by this compelling argument. lol

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage is not in the Constitution.

Yet it is still a Constitutional right.

The constitutional rights of children to have both blood parents incentivized to be in their home trumps any gays claiming they have rights to marry.

If children have the constitutional right to have both blood parents in their home then we wouldn't allow those parents to divorce.

Stop pretending you care about children.

This is all about fomenting hatred towards homosexuals for you.

Gays are so stupid. Gay is abnormal and should not be raising children.

I can't believe the courts haven't been been swayed by this compelling argument. lol

And what they don't get is that their argument pretty much boils down to that- 'gays are so stupid.....so icky.....so abnormal.....'

And so they keep losing in court.

 

[Syriusly]

All that hot air and you still didn't answer the question. I can make a safe bet they didn't and there are more children that probably are adversely affected by unnatural gay marriage than you care to admit. Gay is a mental disorder.

Then all you have to do is prove that. Either one of those claims. Your religious bigotry is not proof.

Well if I may?

1. Studies have shown children fare best when their blood parents are in the home with them.

And that of course has nothing to do with marriage equality- even assuming that your claim was true.

Same gender couples who marry, may or may not have children.
Same gender couples may or may not have children, regardless of whether they are married.

Preventing same gender marriage accomplishes only one goal: preventing children of same gender couples from having married parents.

 

[Syriusly]

If children have the constitutional right to have both blood parents in their home then we wouldn't allow those parents to divorce.

Stop pretending you care about children.

This is all about fomenting hatred towards homosexuals for you.

Well so you're saying children don't have civil rights? A state can decide to grant divorce if the blood parent environment becomes too toxic for them. It's just that states want the best shot for kids at marriage and that is their two blood parents in the home. It isn't always perfection, but it is the best for them of any arrangement called "marriage".

Do you allege that homes where one of the blood parents is missing 100% of the time, as guaranteed by the very structure of the marriage (gay), is something a state should be in the business of incentivizing?

LOL- once again Silhouette you have retreated to lying about what I have said.

Children have Constitutional rights- just not the ones you make up. You claim that children have a 'constitutional right to have both biological parents' in the home, but of course that is just your imagination- as you even point out. The State doesnt' care what the reason for a divorce is- hence 'no fault' divorce'- there is no State requirement to prove that a divorce is necessary for the protection or benefit of children.

I 'allege' that the state should treat same gender couples no differently than any other couple who cannot reproduce naturally with each other- i.e. as every couple who uses invitro fertilization or who adopts.

I 'allege' that the children of gay parents deserve equal consideration as the children of straight parents.

You believe that the children of gay parents don't deserve married parents.

 

[bodecea]

Marriage is not in the Constitution.

Yet it is still a Constitutional right.

The constitutional rights of children to have both blood parents incentivized to be in their home trumps any gays claiming they have rights to marry.

If children have the constitutional right to have both blood parents in their home then we wouldn't allow those parents to divorce.

Stop pretending you care about children.

This is all about fomenting hatred towards homosexuals for you.

Gays are so stupid. Gay is abnormal and should not be raising children.

Reminds me of the Bunny poster "Boys are stupid and they smell."

 

[Inevitable]

The constitutional rights of children to have both blood parents incentivized to be in their home trumps any gays claiming they have rights to marry.

What article of the constitution is that?

The same article that guarantees gay marriage ...

There is no article that guarantees any marriage.

 

[Inevitable]

Your right to your perverted religious beliefs does not extend to denying others their rights.

My religious beliefs happen to be the truth, whether you believe so or not.

That claim has been the basis of far too many abuses over history to base laws upon.

The lefts claims are nothing but hot air and bull.

Unfortunately for you, what you call 'hot air and bull' the courts call 'Constitutional Rights"

Gay unnatural marriage is not in the constitution.

Neither is straight marriage.

 

[Inevitable]

Did they interview everyone of those so called 40,000 kids? If I even believe that number.

Well to be fair this thread is about kids inasmuch as it's about the states' rights to set incentives via the institution "marriage" for kids' best shot at life. That is both blood parents in the home from a standpoint of reasearch and of common sense. There is no instinct to protect and nurture dominant to blood offspring of both parents.

Gay marriage guarantees the state it is petitioning for acceptance to offer an environment bereft of one of the child[rens] blood parents 100% of the time. And states have a right to say no to that until such time or if such time as SCOTUS does or does not overturn Baker or Windsor. Until that time, Baker and Windsor stand.

All that hot air and you still didn't answer the question. I can make a safe bet they didn't and there are more children that probably are adversely affected by unnatural gay marriage than you care to admit. Gay is a mental disorder.

That nowhere argument?

Even if it is a mental disorder, what difference would it make?

 

[Inevitable]

Marriage is sacred between a Man and a Woman, anything else is sick and an abomination.

Your right to your perverted religious beliefs does not extend to denying others their rights.

My religious beliefs happen to be the truth, whether you believe so or not.

Orgy porgy gives release.

 

[Inevitable]

Marriage is not in the Constitution.

Yet it is still a Constitutional right.

The constitutional rights of children to have both blood parents incentivized to be in their home trumps any gays claiming they have rights to marry.

If children have the constitutional right to have both blood parents in their home then we wouldn't allow those parents to divorce.

Stop pretending you care about children.

This is all about fomenting hatred towards homosexuals for you.

Gays are so stupid. Gay is abnormal and should not be raising children.

Well, sorry you feel that way, but it doesn't really matter, there never has been a law against it, and gay people have been raising children for centuries, even millennia.

 

[Inevitable]

Marriage is not in the Constitution.

Yet it is still a Constitutional right.

The constitutional rights of children to have both blood parents incentivized to be in their home trumps any gays claiming they have rights to marry.

If children have the constitutional right to have both blood parents in their home then we wouldn't allow those parents to divorce.

Stop pretending you care about children.

This is all about fomenting hatred towards homosexuals for you.

Gays are so stupid. Gay is abnormal and should not be raising children.

Reminds me of the Bunny poster "Boys are stupid and they smell."

Yeah, it seems as though we have a brilliant one here.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Did they interview everyone of those so called 40,000 kids? If I even believe that number.

Well to be fair this thread is about kids inasmuch as it's about the states' rights to set incentives via the institution "marriage" for kids' best shot at life. That is both blood parents in the home from a standpoint of reasearch and of common sense. There is no instinct to protect and nurture dominant to blood offspring of both parents.

Gay marriage guarantees the state it is petitioning for acceptance to offer an environment bereft of one of the child[rens] blood parents 100% of the time. And states have a right to say no to that until such time or if such time as SCOTUS does or does not overturn Baker or Windsor. Until that time, Baker and Windsor stand.

All that hot air and you still didn't answer the question. I can make a safe bet they didn't and there are more children that probably are adversely affected by unnatural gay marriage than you care to admit. Gay is a mental disorder.

That nowhere argument?

Even if it is a mental disorder, what difference would it make?

So you have crazy gays raising children, these are the kids DHS needs to be taking.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Did they interview everyone of those so called 40,000 kids? If I even believe that number.

Well to be fair this thread is about kids inasmuch as it's about the states' rights to set incentives via the institution "marriage" for kids' best shot at life. That is both blood parents in the home from a standpoint of reasearch and of common sense. There is no instinct to protect and nurture dominant to blood offspring of both parents.

Gay marriage guarantees the state it is petitioning for acceptance to offer an environment bereft of one of the child[rens] blood parents 100% of the time. And states have a right to say no to that until such time or if such time as SCOTUS does or does not overturn Baker or Windsor. Until that time, Baker and Windsor stand.

All that hot air and you still didn't answer the question. I can make a safe bet they didn't and there are more children that probably are adversely affected by unnatural gay marriage than you care to admit. Gay is a mental disorder.

That nowhere argument?

Even if it is a mental disorder, what difference would it make?

So you have crazy gays raising children, these are the kids DHS needs to be taking.

Since heterosexuals also raise gays should their kids also be taken away from them? Oh wait, you only want to take away the straight kids. How exactly are you going to be sure that you have right kids? What if one of them turns out to be gay? Will that infect all of the others? Have you just created a breeding ground for gays?

As usual the kneejerk bigots never think their stupidity through.

 

[Syriusly]

Did they interview everyone of those so called 40,000 kids? If I even believe that number.

Well to be fair this thread is about kids inasmuch as it's about the states' rights to set incentives via the institution "marriage" for kids' best shot at life. That is both blood parents in the home from a standpoint of reasearch and of common sense. There is no instinct to protect and nurture dominant to blood offspring of both parents.

Gay marriage guarantees the state it is petitioning for acceptance to offer an environment bereft of one of the child[rens] blood parents 100% of the time. And states have a right to say no to that until such time or if such time as SCOTUS does or does not overturn Baker or Windsor. Until that time, Baker and Windsor stand.

All that hot air and you still didn't answer the question. I can make a safe bet they didn't and there are more children that probably are adversely affected by unnatural gay marriage than you care to admit. Gay is a mental disorder.

That nowhere argument?

Even if it is a mental disorder, what difference would it make?

So you have crazy gays raising children, these are the kids DHS needs to be taking.

So you want the DHS to take kids from the gay parents who have adopted the kids abandoned by their straight parents because the gay parents are 'crazy'.....

Now that is true Conservative Big STate solution thinking.

 

[Inevitable]

Did they interview everyone of those so called 40,000 kids? If I even believe that number.

Well to be fair this thread is about kids inasmuch as it's about the states' rights to set incentives via the institution "marriage" for kids' best shot at life. That is both blood parents in the home from a standpoint of reasearch and of common sense. There is no instinct to protect and nurture dominant to blood offspring of both parents.

Gay marriage guarantees the state it is petitioning for acceptance to offer an environment bereft of one of the child[rens] blood parents 100% of the time. And states have a right to say no to that until such time or if such time as SCOTUS does or does not overturn Baker or Windsor. Until that time, Baker and Windsor stand.

All that hot air and you still didn't answer the question. I can make a safe bet they didn't and there are more children that probably are adversely affected by unnatural gay marriage than you care to admit. Gay is a mental disorder.

That nowhere argument?

Even if it is a mental disorder, what difference would it make?

So you have crazy gays raising children, these are the kids DHS needs to be taking.

Sorry, they have real work to do.

 

[Inevitable]

Did they interview everyone of those so called 40,000 kids? If I even believe that number.

Well to be fair this thread is about kids inasmuch as it's about the states' rights to set incentives via the institution "marriage" for kids' best shot at life. That is both blood parents in the home from a standpoint of reasearch and of common sense. There is no instinct to protect and nurture dominant to blood offspring of both parents.

Gay marriage guarantees the state it is petitioning for acceptance to offer an environment bereft of one of the child[rens] blood parents 100% of the time. And states have a right to say no to that until such time or if such time as SCOTUS does or does not overturn Baker or Windsor. Until that time, Baker and Windsor stand.

All that hot air and you still didn't answer the question. I can make a safe bet they didn't and there are more children that probably are adversely affected by unnatural gay marriage than you care to admit. Gay is a mental disorder.

That nowhere argument?

Even if it is a mental disorder, what difference would it make?

So you have crazy gays raising children, these are the kids DHS needs to be taking.

Since heterosexuals also raise gays should their kids also be taken away from them? Oh wait, you only want to take away the straight kids. How exactly are you going to be sure that you have right kids? What if one of them turns out to be gay? Will that infect all of the others? Have you just created a breeding ground for gays?

As usual the kneejerk bigots never think their stupidity through.

Some people aren't worth taking seriously.

 

[Inevitable]

Did they interview everyone of those so called 40,000 kids? If I even believe that number.

Well to be fair this thread is about kids inasmuch as it's about the states' rights to set incentives via the institution "marriage" for kids' best shot at life. That is both blood parents in the home from a standpoint of reasearch and of common sense. There is no instinct to protect and nurture dominant to blood offspring of both parents.

Gay marriage guarantees the state it is petitioning for acceptance to offer an environment bereft of one of the child[rens] blood parents 100% of the time. And states have a right to say no to that until such time or if such time as SCOTUS does or does not overturn Baker or Windsor. Until that time, Baker and Windsor stand.

All that hot air and you still didn't answer the question. I can make a safe bet they didn't and there are more children that probably are adversely affected by unnatural gay marriage than you care to admit. Gay is a mental disorder.

That nowhere argument?

Even if it is a mental disorder, what difference would it make?

So you have crazy gays raising children, these are the kids DHS needs to be taking.

So you want the DHS to take kids from the gay parents who have adopted the kids abandoned by their straight parents because the gay parents are 'crazy'.....

Now that is true Conservative Big STate solution thinking.

Crazy is meaningless.