If you're gay, get ready, the GOP and Trump's cabinet are coming after you. Believe it!

[Silhouette]

I'll take poor fashion as long as kids get both a mother and father out of the marriage contract....like they used to until 2015....for you know...like thousands of years...

So before 2015 all kids had a mother and a father?? Same sex couples did not have kids before that? Never mind. I don't really expect an answer from you.

No. Before 2015 marriage used to remedy and provide the contractual benefit to children of having both a mother and father. As of 2015, marriage doesn't guarantee children those benefits anymore. And, they didn't have unique representation at Obergefell; a contract-revision Hearing.....which is against the law. Before a contract is revised, all parties to it must have representation at the Table.

And before you launch into the cult of LGBT's talking-point of "marriage isn't about children getting benefits" I'll remind you that your cult petitioned the Court in Obergefell on exactly those terms. Your cult said to the Court "You must give gays marriage because of how it will benefit the children!!" But you didn't say what benefits those kids would get that would mitigate permanently losing the hope of ever having a mother or father...for life.

Kids are born into all sorts of unfortunate situations, like single homes, incest, polygamy, lesbian homes. That doesn't mean we legitimize those unfortunate situations to deplete marriage's thousand-year-old vital benefit and remedy to these unfortunate situations: a mother and father.

Children should have had separate unique representation at Obergefell; which they did not. The power of states setting standards for marriage when it comes to behaviors (marrying too young, marrying the same gender, marrying one's brother or sister, marrying too many people) will be restored in favor of children: for whom the marriage contract was originally invented and maintained for over a thousand years. 5 people aren't going to get to overturn 100s of billions of people's expectations of a legal convention as a favor to George Soros's LGBT cult army.

Again, how does stopping gays from getting married give their children a father and a mother? We both know why you never answer this question and always deflect to polygamy and incest instead. Your solution doesn't address your problem. So what's true end game here, Sil? It's okay to come out and say it. lol

Stopping gays from marrying helps ALL children to get a mother and father in marriage. The topic is marriage, not "lifestyles unfortunate children are caught up in that deprive them of both a mother and father".

 

[easyt65]

Haven't seen the LGBT community being rounded up yet.... methinks the OP was mistaken.

 

[mdk]

Stopping gays from marrying helps ALL children to get a mother and father in marriage. The topic is marriage, not "lifestyles unfortunate children are caught up in that deprive them of both a mother and father".

That is a rather ironic statement considering your unfortunate lifestyle doesn't provide a father in your household. Must be hard for you to type with that plank in your eye.

 

[Seawytch]

If wishes were horses even beggars would ride. Gays aren't going back in the closet so you can use your wishing well pennies on something more productive.

That's the point you're not getting...we're not shutting up and not going away.

 

[Doc1]

You're 2% of the population, we don't care what you do.
He isn't going to stop you from being able to marry who you want and kill your children. You are giving in to silly hysteria and irrational fear. Estrogen does to that weak people.
Stop the hysterics and grow up.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Haven't seen the LGBT community being rounded up yet.... methinks the OP was mistaken.

So they should be grateful for that??

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You're 2% of the population, we don't care what you do.
He isn't going to stop you from being able to marry who you want and kill your children. You are giving in to silly hysteria and irrational fear. Estrogen does to that weak people.
Stop the hysterics and grow up.

Straight people who obsess and freak out about LGBT rights are also about 2% of the population and are mostly in the rural south. BTW You might want to check that 2% figure, especially when you include all LGBTQ people

 

[Doc1]

You're 2% of the population, we don't care what you do.
He isn't going to stop you from being able to marry who you want and kill your children. You are giving in to silly hysteria and irrational fear. Estrogen does to that weak people.
Stop the hysterics and grow up.

Straight people who obsess and freak out about LGBT rights are also about 2% of the population and are mostly in the rural south. BTW You might want to check that 2% figure, especially when you include all LGBTQ people

5% tops, claim anything else one is simply a liar. Until they start acting normal and not like flaming idiots in front of a Public Servants house they will remain irrelevant. As for the marching dykes, ditto.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Nahhhhhhh... homos back in the closet... Illegal Beaners back on the south side of the Rio Grande... that should do it...

Agreed on illegals (of which only about 55% are Mexican), but how does putting Americans in a closet fix anything?

It gets filth out of sight and it keeps that shit away from our children and away from public life... a consummation devoutly to be wished and pursued...

The filth are the bigots in the White House. They are the real threat to our children.

 

[Divine Wind]

Nahhhhhhh... homos back in the closet... Illegal Beaners back on the south side of the Rio Grande... that should do it...

Agreed on illegals (of which only about 55% are Mexican), but how does putting Americans in a closet fix anything?

It gets filth out of sight and it keeps that shit away from our children and away from public life... a consummation devoutly to be wished and pursued...

The filth are the bigots in the White House. They are the real threat to our children.

The real threat to our children is the hatred and bigotry of people who can't stay out of other people's business.

 

[PredFan]

Start off with Betsy DeVos:

Donald Trump’s education secretary could be justifiably quashed by the U.S. Senate. Her long public record indicates she is a religious Christian zealot who does not believe in the actual separation of church and state, wants public monies funneled into religious schools, and has contributed through family foundations to bigoted groups with a militant anti-gay agenda. During her confirmation hearing she gave disturbing answers to questions about her views of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, standardized tests, and school vouchers. She also suggested guns have a place in American schools, though her claim that they were necessary to defend students from grizzly bear attacks was not very compelling.

Watching her testimony was both hilarious and frightening. That the right wing could agree with her on guns in schools was just bizarre. She believes in conversion therapy and home school.

The bitch firmly believes in "Conversion Therapy". For anyone who doesn't know what that is, the concept was central to the film "A Clockwork Orange".

Trump Education Nominee Betsy DeVos Lied to the Senate



And of course, we know what Pence position is. In his state, he diverted money to help AIDS patients to invest in conversion therapy..

And they do all this evil going against our very constitution in the name of Christianity. Jesus would have a fit.

These are some nasty, dirty Christian Taliban. America had to take Trump's threat seriously. Right wingers are some dangerous people. Lucky his favorability rating is in the 30's. America may finally be getting it.

Thanks for posting that. After eliminating all the lies that are there, it appears that she's a very good candidate indeed.

 

[PredFan]

Nahhhhhhh... homos back in the closet... Illegal Beaners back on the south side of the Rio Grande... that should do it...

Agreed on illegals (of which only about 55% are Mexican), but how does putting Americans in a closet fix anything?

It gets filth out of sight and it keeps that shit away from our children and away from public life... a consummation devoutly to be wished and pursued...

The filth are the bigots in the White House. They are the real threat to our children.

There aren't any more democrats in the White House.

 

[Papageorgio]

Haven't seen the LGBT community being rounded up yet.... methinks the OP was mistaken.

So they should be grateful for that??

The way the OP sounded that it was that way already.

I think there is a lot of drama and his silliness will not happen.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

trump may get to appoint a couple of ussc judges.....dont think anything is beyond belief at this point

Then there would have to be a case brought up thru the lower courts that gives a good valid CONSTITUTIONAL reason to strike down the prior decision....

⦁ Bans against same-sex marriage are unconstitutional as a matter of law because they punish children in an effort to control the conduct of adults. ( written prior to Windsor and Obergefell

Punishing children for matters beyond their control is patently impermissible as a matter of Supreme Court precedent regarding the constitutional rights of children. In the first of these cases, ( Levy vs Louisiana –
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...1/68/case.html ) the court considered a Louisiana law that forbade children born out of wedlock from receiving benefits upon the wrongful death of their mother. Louisiana argued that the law was a perfectly legitimate means of expressing moral disapproval of extramarital liaisons. The Supreme Court, however, determined that the law violated equal protection because it is fundamentally unfair and irrational for a state to deny important benefits to children merely to express moral disapproval of the conduct of adults—or to incentivize adults to behave in a particular way.

In a similar case decided several years later, ( Weber v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../164/case.html ) the court addressed another Louisiana statute that intentionally disadvantaged children born out of wedlock. Specifically, the law at issue preferred “legitimate” children to “illegitimate” children in distributing worker’s compensation benefits upon the death of a parent. The court invalidated the statute, holding that, under the equal protection clause, both classes of children must be permitted to recover equally. “No child,” the court wrote, “is responsible for his birth and penalizing the illegitimate child is an ineffectual—as well as unjust—way of deterring the parent.”

In yet another case ( Plyler v. Doe - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../202/case.html ) decided a decade later, the court relied on the same logic in holding that states could not constitutionally deny public education to undocumented immigrant children in an effort to discourage their parents from entering the country illegally. The constitutional conclusion from this line of cases is clear: No matter how reprehensible a state finds certain adult conduct, it cannot curb that conduct through laws that punish children.

The parallels between the laws struck down in these cases and bans against same-sex marriage are unavoidable. States that ban gay marriage once argued that they did so in order to condemn homosexuality; today, they argue that gay marriage must be forbidden in order to somehow incentivize straight marriage. No matter the rationale, the effect of these laws is clear: Gay marriage bans deny the children of same-sex couples critical benefits, both economically and psychologically. Even if one believes that gay marriage bans are a justifiable effort to control the conduct of adults, it is simply unconstitutional to punish children based on that belief.

In 2013, an amicus brief was filed explaining why the court’s child-centered equal protection precedent should make United States v. Windsor an easy case to decide. But while Justice Anthony Kennedy did discuss harm to children in his groundbreaking Windsor opinion, (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../opinion3.html ) he did not explicitly recognize the legal theory that the harm to children alone should render gay marriage bans unconstitutional.

Extract from Kennedy's Windsor Opinion - The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558 , and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives. ... DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. See 26 U. S. C. §106; Treas. Reg. §1.106–1, 26 CFR §1.106–1 (2012); IRS Private Letter Ruling 9850011 (Sept. 10, 199 . And it denies or re- duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security. See Social Security Administration, Social Security Survivors Benefits 5 (2012) (benefits available to a surviving spouse caring for the couple’s child), online at http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Marriage Equality and adoption…The Right Thing to do For The Children By Progressive Patriot 9.12.14

People who use children to assail gay marriage and adoption either have not given much thought to the down side of these bans-or – are being intellectually dishonest in saying that they take their position on behalf of the children which they really care little about.

It is a logical fallacy-an appeal to ignorance if you will to insist that same sex marriage and adoption of children by gays will be detrimental to those children, and that society as a whole, will somehow be harmed by these arrangements. Many will take the position that children are entitled to a “mom and a dad” That may be so but the reality is that many people in this life do not have everything that they are entitled to. There are many children without both a mother and a father, and some without either. Banning gay marriage and adoption is not going to change that.

Children also have a right to a stable, nurturing and permanent home and it is well established that that goal can be realized in a variety of family structures. The NJ Department of Families and Children-the public agency charged with the responsibility of finding adoptive homes for children –states, in part, on their web site that no one will be denied the opportunity to adopt based on sexual orientation. In fact, the Department’s Division of Child Protection and Permanency (formerly DYFS) has been placing children for adoption with gay and lesbian people- those who are single and those who are in a relationship- for decades with good outcomes for the children. And there are many, many more who still need homes while there is a dearth of people willing and able to adopt them. I know this because I worked in the foster care and adoption field in New Jersey for 26 years. I might add that children who are placed for adoption are already in a situation where they have neither a mother nor a father available to them. To imply that that a child would better off languishing in the foster care system as a ward of the state, than to be adopted into a nontraditional family is beyond absurd.

Furthermore, the vast majority of child psychologists will tell you that there are far more important factors that impact a child’s development than the gender or sexual orientation of the parents. No doubt that one could dredge up research studies that claim to prove that gay parenting is harmful. However, well established organizations like the American Psychological Association take the position that gay and lesbian parents are just as capable of rearing emotionally healthy children as anyone else. Yet even if family composition was, as some purport, a critical factor in children’s development, the fact is that there are and will always be children in non-traditional living situations where they do not have a mother and a father. Like it or not, it is also a fact that gay and lesbian people have children, be it from a prior relationship, adoption, or surrogacy.

Denying gay and lesbians the opportunity to marry does nothing to ensure that any greater number of children will have a home with a mother and a father. All that will be accomplished will be to deny numerous children the legal rights, protections, status and stability that comes with having married parents. And, to deny gays the ability to adopt will only ensure that more children will have neither a mother nor a father. Everyone is entitled to their moral views and religious beliefs but it is disingenuous and opprobrious to use children as pawns in the lost fight against equality by bloviating about how children would be harmed by it. While single people can be great parents, the benefits to children of having two parents is undeniable

The benefits to children of allowing two people who are in a committed relationship to be married are obvious for anyone willing to look at the issue objectively. Those who truly care about children should be willing to open all of the possible pathways for them to be adopted and to have married parents when possible.

 

[Silhouette]

I'd say using a contract to legally erase the hope of children collectively to a vital father and mother both in marriage is the area of concern here. Don't worry. There will be more arguments to add to the ones you listed above when children finally have separate advocacy for their own unique interest in the 1,000s years old marriage contract that used to benefit the woes of their missing a mother or father.

 

[Divine Wind]

How many of those who are against gay marriage and gays adopting children have adopted a child themselves? If they haven't, then IMO, they are fucking low-life hypocrites condemning 23,000+ children per year to a life with no permanent home, a 2% chance of going to college and a good chance of ending up in prison, at a cost of $30K/year to taxpayers because they are homophobes.

Surprising Facts You May Not Know About Adoption
There are 107,918 foster children eligible for and waiting to be adopted.
In 2014, 50,644 foster kids were adopted — a number that has stayed roughly consistent for the past five years. The average age of a waiting child is 7.7 years old and 29% of them will spend at least three years in foster care. "Some people wonder why there are so many teenagers still wanted to be adopted, still feeling that a family is so important," says Hochman. "One 16-year-old we worked with said that when he graduated high school, he wanted one person in that room to be there for him. It's always important."

81.5 million Americans have considered adoption.
If 1 in 500 of these adults adopted, every waiting child in foster care would have a permanent family. Every year, about 23,000 children age out of foster care without finding a permanent family. This is tragic for many reasons: Only 2% of children who age out of foster care will go on to get a college education, and 80% of the prison population comprises adults who were in the foster care system at some point on their childhood.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes and on that subject, why is it gay men overwhelmingly shop for distressed boy orphans instead of girls? I mean if you want kids without parents to have homes, I understand there's quite a child prostitution thing going in Asia. They get fed and clothes and stuff..and at least they won't be orphans anymore!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'd say using a contract to legally erase the hope of children collectively to a vital father and mother both in marriage is the area of concern here. Don't worry. There will be more arguments to add to the ones you listed above when children finally have separate advocacy for their own unique interest in the 1,000s years old marriage contract that used to benefit the woes of their missing a mother or father.

I can't take your ignorant equine excrement seriously. You are a stale joke without a punch line.

Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage, and child rearing by gays will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda. If there was a body of credible evidence to show that having gay parents was in any way detrimental to children, this would not be necessary!

Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court 2.22.14 Selected excerpts follow….the full article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

Scholars testifying in defense of Michigan’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage aim to sow doubt about the wisdom of change. They brandish a few sharply disputed recent studies — the fruits of a concerted and expensive effort by conservatives to sponsor research by sympathetic scholars — to suggest that children of same-sex couples do not fare as well as those raised by married heterosexuals.

That view will be challenged in court by longtime scholars in the field, backed by major professional organizations, who call those studies fatally flawed. These scholars will describe a near consensus that, other factors like income and stability being equal, children of same-sex couples do just as well as those of heterosexual couples.

In meetings hosted by the Heritage Foundation in Washington in late 2010, opponents of same-sex marriage discussed the urgent need to generate new studies on family structures and children, according to recent pretrial depositions of two witnesses in the Michigan trial and other participants. One result was the marshaling of $785,000 for a large-scale study by Mark Regnerus, a meeting participant and a sociologist at the University of Texas who will testify in Michigan.

………four social science researchers, all of whom attended at least one of the Heritage Foundation meetings and went on to publish new reports, are scheduled to testify in favor of Michigan’s ban.
The most prominent is Dr. Regnerus. His study, published in 2012, was condemned by leading social scientists as misleading and irrelevant, but some conservatives call it the best of its kind and continue to cite it in speeches and court cases.

Dr. Regnerus found that the subjects in that category fared worse based on a host of behavioral and psychological measures than those who grew up in intact traditional families. The study, Dr. Regnerus wrote, “clearly reveals” that children are most apt to succeed when they grow up “with their married mother and father.”
But professional rejections of Dr. Regnerus’s conclusions were swift and severe. In a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court last year in two same-sex marriage cases, a report by the 14,000-member American Sociological Association noted that more than half the subjects whom Dr. Regnerus had described as children of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” were the offspring of failed opposite-sex marriages in which a parent later engaged in same-sex behavior, and that many others never lived with same-sex parents.

“If any conclusion can be reached from Regnerus’s study,” the association said, “it is that family stability is predictive of child well-being.”

Wendy D. Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and the main author of the association report, said of the wider literature: “Every study has shortcomings, but when you pull them all together, the picture is very clear. There is no evidence that children fare worse in same-sex families.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

In addition the Sociology Department of the University of Texas issued this statement Monday about sociologist Mark Regnerus, who believes traditional marriage should be upheld in Michigan because, he says, kids thrive best in that setting. “Dr. Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology… Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of same-sex parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGT partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims.” –
See more at: Account Suspended

 

[mdk]

Yes and on that subject, why is it gay men overwhelmingly shop for distressed boy orphans instead of girls? I mean if you want kids without parents to have homes, I understand there's quite a child prostitution thing going in Asia. They get fed and clothes and stuff..and at least they won't be orphans anymore!

Compares gay parents in America to forced child sex slaves in Asia. Remember folks, this isn't about hate with Sil. lol