Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

[Silhouette]

Yes mdk vv , It's hilarious when child abuse is institutionalized to benefit adult gay sex addicts.

Gays getting marrried isn't child abuse, dumb bunny.

Some people would say that depriving a child via a contractual term of either a mother or father for life IS child abuse. In fact, the survey in the link of my last post says its child abuse defined.

Do you think if I agree to refrain from calling you a stupid asshole you could refrain from calling names in your argument? You seem compelled to call names and use ad hominem liberally as if it were a legitimate substitute for substance.

Yeah, seven people voting in an internet straw poll isn't doesn't define jack squat.

You don't have any substantive arguments, Sil. All you have is an obsessive and mentally ill hate for queers. Also, I'll call you anything I wish. Don't like it? Tough shit.

106 people voted in this poll, not 7. Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

 

[mdk]

106 people voted in this poll, not 7. Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

And? Your silly poll doesn't even ask about gay marriage. You like to pretend it does, though.

 

[Silhouette]

Ok so you lied about the number of people who voted. So you are a liar. And the poll doesn't need to mention gay marriage because gay marriage is synonymous with either no mother or no father for life.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

They look like twins. Old School is endorsing homosexual incest.

What a sick man.

 

[mdk]

Ok so you lied about the number of people who voted. So you are a liar. And the poll doesn't need to mention gay marriage because gay marriage is synonymous with either no mother or no father for life.

I thought you meant the poll for this thread. Either way, it is still a meaningless internet straw poll.

I see, a poll that doesn't ask about gay marriage reveals what people think about gay marriage.

Here is another poll that says people support gay marriage:
POLL: What’s your favorite ice cream flavor?

 

[mdk]

Gay marriage wins again in this poll:

favorite color poll

 

[Silhouette]

Gay marriage is one and the same as the absence of a mother or father for life. So the poll that asks about the importance of both is a poll that directly reflects how people feel about gay marriage. Logic says if gay marriage is the absence of either a mother or father 100% of the time, the

I thought you meant the poll for this thread. Either way, it is still a meaningless internet straw poll.

Actually the poll has meaning. 106 people voted in it. 90 across all political walks voted that they had both gender parents and that was important to them or that they lacked one or the other and that lack left them longing for the absent gender. That's 85% of people who feel that a marriage that lacks either a mother or father (from the perspective of a growing up person) is lacking with respect to children being raised. ie, they themselves would not want to have been raised in that home.

Gay marriage lacks either a mother or father 100% of the time. Therefore, 85% of people who responded to the poll reject gay marriage on that point alone.

 

[mdk]

Gay marriage is one and the same as the absence of a mother or father for life. So the poll that asks about the importance of both is a poll that directly reflects how people feel about gay marriage. Logic says if gay marriage is the absence of either a mother or father 100% of the time, the

I thought you meant the poll for this thread. Either way, it is still a meaningless internet straw poll.

Actually the poll has meaning. 106 people voted in it. 90 across all political walks voted that they had both gender parents and that was important to them or that they lacked one or the other and that lack left them longing for the absent gender. That's 85% of people who feel that a marriage that lacks either a mother or father (from the perspective of a growing up person) is lacking with respect to children being raised. ie, they themselves would not want to have been raised in that home.

Gay marriage lacks either a mother or father 100% of the time. Therefore, 85% of people who responded to the poll reject gay marriage on that point alone.

Pretending that the poll is about gay marriage when it doesn't ask about gay marriage is how delude yourself into believing that 85% of the respondents oppose it. These are the lies you tell yourself at night to justify your mental ill crusade. When people said they voted and still support gay marriage you dismissed their opinion or outright ignored it.

 

[Silhouette]

When people said they voted and still support gay marriage you dismissed their opinion or outright ignored it.

No, actually. I don't dismiss those comments. They're important. They show a fundamental lack in the person's ability to empathize with others, particularly children, which is disturbing. They're saying "having a mother and father both was important to me, but I could give a fuck about other kids lacking those two vital components in their childhood". Pretty creepy.

 

[mdk]

When people said they voted and still support gay marriage you dismissed their opinion or outright ignored it.

No, actually. I don't dismiss those comments. They're important. They show a fundamental lack in the person's ability to empathize with others, particularly children, which is disturbing. They're saying "having a mother and father both was important to me, but I could give a fuck about other kids lacking those two vital components in their childhood". Pretty creepy.

And yet you spend all this time worrying about gay households while ignoring the fact your own household doesn't have a father in it. Go figure.

 

[Lysistrata]

The argument that allowing two people of the same sex to marry harms children by "institutionalizing the deprivation of either a mother or father for life" doesn't hold water. There are no children in existence at the time of marriage unless one of the parties has had a heterosexual relationship in the past that produced children.
There is no reason to expect that persons who are prevented from marrying someone of the same sex whom they wanted to marry would then enter into a heterosexual marriage and produce children unless they were bisexual in the first place. The only ways a same-sex couple could become parents are through in-vitro fertilization, if the couple are lesbians, use of a surrogate, or adoption. With adoption, the heterosexual birth parents aren't being parents in the first place, the child has no parents, and the adopting couple are volunteers. Heterosexuals sometimes have children merely by accident and don't make good parents. We have many people in this country raising children with no partner. One is better than none, and two is better than one.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ States and society have always anticipated the arrival of children in marriage and that anticipation is precisely why the institution was invented and maintained from time immemorial to 2015. Society considered/considers the stable presence of both a male and female regular adult role model as vital to the anticipated boys and girls who will arrive in most marriage statistically. Otherwise the states have zero fiscal incentive to subsidize (entice) married people with benefits. States have read surveys and studies similar to this one, the most comprehensive of its kind. Pay attention particularly to page 6, left hand side: Youth_Index_2010_Jan2011.pdf

When people said they voted and still support gay marriage you dismissed their opinion or outright ignored it.

No, actually. I don't dismiss those comments. They're important. They show a fundamental lack in the person's ability to empathize with others, particularly children, which is disturbing. They're saying "having a mother and father both was important to me, but I could give a fuck about other kids lacking those two vital components in their childhood". Pretty creepy.

And yet you spend all this time worrying about gay households while ignoring the fact your own household doesn't have a father in it. Go figure.

Ad hominem won't get you off the hook. We're talking about radical changes in the INSTITUTION of marriage forced upon the states by five unelected lawyers who effectively overturned Windsor in two years time. And tried a power grab on areas outside their enforcement. They are not allowed to add language to the US Constitution that doesn't exist. They are not allowed to prefer one set of moral edicts (establishing a Gay DOMA) and denounce others (regular DOMA). Either forced-values about behaviors are legal to require states to follow or they aren't. The liberal activist judges on the USSC don't get to pick preferences in behavioral dogma and force the states to play along, OUTSIDE their power.

And yes, if any of the 85% who responded said they felt it was important to have a mother and father both in their lives, but could care less if other children don't (gay marriage) then that is creepy. Chilling actually. Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

 

[Syriusly]

Ok so you lied about the number of people who voted. So you are a liar. And the poll doesn't need to mention gay marriage because gay marriage is synonymous with either no mother or no father for life.

The poll didn't mention gay marriage because as usual you were attempting to deceive.

And no- 'gay marriage' is not synonymous with parenting at all- of any kind. Obergefell and his partner didn't have kids. Windsor and her wife didn't have kids.

You just make crap up- and lie about it- to pursue your anti-homosexual agenda.

 

[Syriusly]

Actually the poll has meaning. 106 people voted in it. 90 across all political walks voted that they had both gender parents and that was important to them or that they lacked one or the other and that lack left them longing for the absent gender. That's 85% of people who feel that a marriage that lacks either a mother or father (from the perspective of a growing up person) is lacking with respect to children being raised. ie, they themselves would not want to have been raised in that home..

A) Your 'poll' is statistically meaningless- for too many reasons to bother pointing out- again- since you always ignore them.
B) And your interpretation of course is just your own obsessive fantasy

 

[Syriusly]

When people said they voted and still support gay marriage you dismissed their opinion or outright ignored it.

No, actually. I don't dismiss those comments. They're important. They show a fundamental lack in the person's ability to empathize with others, particularly children, which is disturbing. They're saying "having a mother and father both was important to me, but I could give a fuck about other kids lacking those two vital components in their childhood". Pretty creepy.

What is creepy is that a divorced single mom is lecturing others that choosing a relationship that leaves children without a father married to a mother is abusive to children.

There are tons of single moms and dads doing a great job raising their kids. Would I wish for them to have a partner to help raise those kids? Certainly I think the statistics show that in most cases it would benefit the kids. But not all.

But just because a mom chooses to raise her kids without the father, that doesn't mean the mom is abusing her kids. And if two mom's are raising their kids without the father- that is frankly- better for the kids than being raised by a single mom- statistically.

Do I think it is good for kids to have role models from both genders in their lives? Sure do- but that role model is not always the mother or father, and not always married to the other parent. My niece's male role model was her grandfather.

 

[Syriusly]

^^ States and society have always anticipated the arrival of children in marriage and that anticipation is precisely why the institution was invented and maintained from time immemorial to 2015.

You keep saying that.

Like if you keep saying it over and over again it will somehow magically make it so.

But it doesn't.

It just means you keep saying over and over.

 

[Silhouette]

Did you really need three, excuse me now four, separate posts to reply just to one poster? Or were your intentions to spam my points into obscurity by turning over the page?

 

[Syriusly]

States have read surveys and studies similar to this one, the most comprehensive of its kind. Pay attention particularly to page 6, left hand side: Youth_Index_2010_Jan2011.pdf

There is no evidence any state has ever read that article about children in Britain in 2010.

And of course that article never mentions gay parents at all.

It is discussing children being raised by single parents- without any opposite gender role model.

And specifically points out that that role model doesn't have to be a parent.

As usual- you are just lying.

When you cite something you either:
a) Lie- and misrepresent what the article says- this is always the case when you don't quote the article or
b) When you do quote- you carefully edit the quote to eliminate the parts that contradict what you want it to say- again you just are lying.

 

[Syriusly]

^^ States and society have always anticipated the arrival of children in marriage and that anticipation is precisely why the institution was invented and maintained from time immemorial to 2015. Society considered/considers the stable presence of both a male and female regular adult role model as vital to the anticipated boys and girls who will arrive in most marriage statistically. Otherwise the states have zero fiscal incentive to subsidize (entice) married people with benefits. States have read surveys and studies similar to this one, the most comprehensive of its kind. Pay attention particularly to page 6, left hand side: Youth_Index_2010_Jan2011.pdf

When people said they voted and still support gay marriage you dismissed their opinion or outright ignored it.

No, actually. I don't dismiss those comments. They're important. They show a fundamental lack in the person's ability to empathize with others, particularly children, which is disturbing. They're saying "having a mother and father both was important to me, but I could give a fuck about other kids lacking those two vital components in their childhood". Pretty creepy.

And yet you spend all this time worrying about gay households while ignoring the fact your own household doesn't have a father in it. Go figure.

We're talking about radical changes in the INSTITUTION of marriage forced upon the states by five unelected lawyers who effectively overturned Windsor in two years time.

'5 unelected lawyers'- also known as The Supreme Court. And they aren't elected- because we have a Constitution. Which both says that they are not elected- and that they enforce.

And Obergefell didn't overturn Windsor at all- which is why DOMA is still dead. Again- you are just lying.

 

[Syriusly]

Did you really need three, excuse me now four, separate posts to reply just to one poster? Or were your intentions to spam my points into obscurity by turning over the page?

I am just fine with how I reply.

At least I use the reply function.