I am Sick to Death of the Elites Dishing Crap to People of Faith

[Fort Fun Indiana]

..religion is absolutely essential to people who want authoritative theocracy to codify their fetishes and neuroses into law.

You mean like Obergefell 2015?

You know, where your cult's fetishes had enshrined in law that there can be a new binding contract that banishes children from either a father or mother for life?

Between the two sets of dogma, at least Christians aren't promoting child abuse as an Institution backed by a contract.

I, of course, dont believe ot to be child abuse in any way, and you make yourself sound kind of sgupid to say it is. Your argument is weak and fueled by religious fetish, and so it will fail quickly and with a whimper. In fact, it has already failed.

 

[Political Junky]

Oh, it's the old "if you debate us you obsess on gay sex" trick.

By the way, you'll be jumping into that debate already behind 1,000,000 to 1. It's going to be like a guy with a sword fighting an army with machine guns. Have at it, Jaysus-boy!

See now that's odd. This poll would suggest that 80% of people (spread evenly across the entire political spectrum) believe both a mother and father are important to children. How do they get those in gay marriage again?

Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

Should kids of be taken away from divorced parents?

 

[DOTR]

Oh, it's the old "if you debate us you obsess on gay sex" trick.

By the way, you'll be jumping into that debate already behind 1,000,000 to 1. It's going to be like a guy with a sword fighting an army with machine guns. Have at it, Jaysus-boy!

See now that's odd. This poll would suggest that 80% of people (spread evenly across the entire political spectrum) believe both a mother and father are important to children. How do they get those in gay marriage again?

Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

Should kids of be taken away from divorced parents?

And do what with them? Children of divorce and single mothers are already severely damaged. I can’t see making them wards of the state helping that.

 

[Political Junky]

Oh, it's the old "if you debate us you obsess on gay sex" trick.

By the way, you'll be jumping into that debate already behind 1,000,000 to 1. It's going to be like a guy with a sword fighting an army with machine guns. Have at it, Jaysus-boy!

See now that's odd. This poll would suggest that 80% of people (spread evenly across the entire political spectrum) believe both a mother and father are important to children. How do they get those in gay marriage again?

Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

Should kids of be taken away from divorced parents?

And do what with them? Children of divorce and single mothers are already severely damaged. I can’t see making them wards of the state helping that.

You'd rather kids be raised orphanages than adopted by gay parents?

 

[DOTR]

Oh, it's the old "if you debate us you obsess on gay sex" trick.

By the way, you'll be jumping into that debate already behind 1,000,000 to 1. It's going to be like a guy with a sword fighting an army with machine guns. Have at it, Jaysus-boy!

See now that's odd. This poll would suggest that 80% of people (spread evenly across the entire political spectrum) believe both a mother and father are important to children. How do they get those in gay marriage again?

Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

Should kids of be taken away from divorced parents?

And do what with them? Children of divorce and single mothers are already severely damaged. I can’t see making them wards of the state helping that.

You'd rather kids be raised orphanages than adopted by gay parents?

I thought you said divorced parents. But good lord keep kids away from homosexuals.

 

[Silhouette]

Should kids of be taken away from divorced parents?

They sometimes are when a guardian ad litem finds one or the other or both as abusive or negligent.

 

[Syriusly]

Should kids of be taken away from divorced parents?

They sometimes are when a guardian ad litem finds one or the other or both as abusive or negligent.

Or when child protective services does for being abusive or negligent. Of course that can happen to any parent- or parents- regardless of marriage or divorce.

Of course there is no reason to take kids away from a good parent- or good parents- regardless of whether the parents are straight or gay.

 

[Syriusly]

By the way, you'll be jumping into that debate already behind 1,000,000 to 1. It's going to be like a guy with a sword fighting an army with machine guns. Have at it, Jaysus-boy!

See now that's odd. This poll would suggest that 80% of people (spread evenly across the entire political spectrum) believe both a mother and father are important to children. How do they get those in gay marriage again?

Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

Should kids of be taken away from divorced parents?

And do what with them? Children of divorce and single mothers are already severely damaged. I can’t see making them wards of the state helping that.

You'd rather kids be raised orphanages than adopted by gay parents?

I thought you said divorced parents. But good lord keep kids away from homosexuals.

Yes- because you would prefer children to be left in abusive foster homes rather than with good adoptive parents who happen to be gay.

 

[Syriusly]

..religion is absolutely essential to people who want authoritative theocracy to codify their fetishes and neuroses into law.

You mean like Obergefell 2015?

You know, where your cult's fetishes had enshrined in law that there can be a new binding contract that banishes children from either a father or mother for life?

Between the two sets of dogma, at least Christians aren't promoting child abuse as an Institution backed by a contract.

Show me a marriage contract in which children are partners

Yeah- sure isn't mentioned in my wife and I's marriage license.

 

[Syriusly]

..religion is absolutely essential to people who want authoritative theocracy to codify their fetishes and neuroses into law.

You know, where your cult's fetishes had enshrined in law that there can be a new binding contract that banishes children from either a father or mother for life? .

No such contract exists.

You of course want to prevent gays from marrying- ensuring that their kids will be harmed.

You know- as Obergefell specifically notes.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

You of course want to prevent gays from marrying- ensuring that their kids will be harmed

Gays have always been free to marry. It's not our fault they are repulsed by women.

You, however, want to REDEFINE MARRIAGE to mean something it has NEVER meant.

 

[Syriusly]

You of course want to prevent gays from marrying- ensuring that their kids will be harmed

Gays have always been free to marry. It's not our fault they are repulsed by women.

You, however, want to REDEFINE MARRIAGE to mean something it has NEVER meant.

No- I want to marriage equality for Americans who happen to be gay.

 

[Silhouette]

You of course want to prevent gays from marrying- ensuring that their kids will be harmed

Gays have always been free to marry. It's not our fault they are repulsed by women.

You, however, want to REDEFINE MARRIAGE to mean something it has NEVER meant.

And, that would be creating a contract which destroys children's enjoyment of the marriage contract since time immemorial. That enjoyment was the provision of a household with both vital mother and father to girls and boys. Now, said "gay marriage" contract banishes children for life from either a mother or father. And this not only is against the wishes of the majority, it was an illegal move per the Infancy Doctrine. In such cases, children are required by law to have separate unique representation. They never had this in Obergefell. Five unelected pens declared on the behalf of 300 million "you as a father or mother are now moved into legal irrelevance to children from/of marriage. You as children-collective (which we admitted marriage serves the best interest to) no longer can consider either a mother or father vital or important to you".

 

[Syriusly]

You of course want to prevent gays from marrying- ensuring that their kids will be harmed

Gays have always been free to marry. It's not our fault they are repulsed by women.

You, however, want to REDEFINE MARRIAGE to mean something it has NEVER meant.

And, that would be creating a contract which destroys children's enjoyment of the marriage contract since time immemorial..

What 'children's enjoyment of the marriage contract'?

Children benefit legally from having legally married parents- as Obergefell noted- and are harmed when their parents are denied the right to marry.

You want to a situation where the children of gay parents are harmed by the law- rather than protected by the law.

 

[Silhouette]

Any child is harmed by a contract that banishes them from a vital father or mother for life. They live a diminished life. Especially girls without mothers and boys without fathers.

 

[Syriusly]

Any child is harmed by a contract that banishes them from a vital father or mother for life..

No such contract exists- anywhere.

 

[Silhouette]

Which of the two lesbians bound by a marriage contract for life is the father to any boys or girls raised in that home?

 

[mdk]

Which of the two lesbians bound by a marriage contract for life is the father to any boys or girls raised in that home?

Who is the father in your household?

 

[Silhouette]

There's no "for life" contract in my home.

 

[rightwinger]

Any child is harmed by a contract that banishes them from a vital father or mother for life. They live a diminished life. Especially girls without mothers and boys without fathers.

How about a child harmed by an abusive parent?