Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[P@triot]

kid (kd)
n.
1.
a. A young goat.
b. The young of a similar animal, such as an antelope.
2.
a. The flesh of a young goat.
b. Leather made from the skin of a young goat; kidskin.
c. An article made from this leather.

Kid - definition of Kid by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

What was the first and primary definition? Oh yeah, "child or young person".

The first and primary is listed right there - look at it. Good grief - I made it so you didn't even have to click the link. The first five are all animals.

Again, this seems a vernacular difference that you want to make a condemnation of my parenting. Your insistence on doing so makes you look the fool.

I'm the only one posting facts - you're the one who can't read them (like the dictionary definition posted). Only one of us is a fool sweetie, and it sure as hell ain't me...

The fundamental right, as defined by the SCOTUS, to marry the non familial, consenting adult of my choice.

Wow - where to begin with this absurd and inaccurate post....

First of all, the Supreme Court does not create rights . The Supreme Court is the Judicial branch of our government - laws (rights) come from the Legislative branch. The fact that this has to be explained to you means you really should be on a board discussing politics. Perhaps you could find a desperate housewives board that you could use to fill the void in your life?

Second, the Supreme Court has not even ruled on gay marriage yet, much less ruled in your favor. What planet do you live on?

Third, marriage is not a right. In the 230+ years of the existence of the United States, marriage has never been a right. Heterosexual couples do not have a "right" to marriage.

Fourth, even the most radically liberal, left-wing ass backwards state in the entire union - California - shot down gay marriage. if you can't get that state to support your asinine agenda, good luck getting the entire nation to support.

You also sound like you'd like to stop us from having children...

Once again, the bigot (self-hating) bulldyke makes up her own version of reality

While I'm sure her comments were sincere, no one is attempting to take away one of her parents and her "argument"/testimony has no bearing on legal marriage. A greater point she probably doesn't know she made, is that parents who love you is a good thing. Just as you couldn't choose between your mom and your dad, some other kid wouldn't be able to choose between his mom and his other mom. it's not about their gender--it's because both parents love you so unconditionally and provide you with different gifts, traditions, etc.

You know how I know that you realize you are 100% wrong (and man do I love knowing that you realize it) - you get very scared of the issue and so you change the narrative. At no point did this 14 year old girl ever mention the word "choice" - yet you are obsessed with changing the narrative to that because you can't take this young lady head on (how sad).

She never said a child should "choose" anything. She asked the gay community which parent she doesn't need (and weeks later you still can't answer so you try to twist her words). Since you homosexuals believe that one gender is not necessary in raising a child properly, she wants you to tell her which of her parents she does not need. Well????

Since you are a gay female, should I assume that the answer for you is "her dad"? You believe her dad can be replaced by another woman? I'm asking - you won't answer (which really says it all, doesn't it?).

 

[P@triot]

it's not about their gender--it's because both parents love you so unconditionally and provide you with different gifts, traditions, etc.

Yeah, um... just curious here, if it's (and I quote) "not about their gender", then why do you suppose that two women cannot create life? Why do you suppose that two men cannot create life? I mean, you'd think nature - of all forces - would figure out that it's (again, I quote) "not about their gender". How odd... not even some freak anomaly has created life from two men or from two women - even ONE time in the history of the world.

Now quick - do what you do best and run from this post. Try to change the narrative of it to something else so you don't have to acknowledge you are wrong...

 

[Seawytch]

kid (kd)
n.
1.
a. A young goat.
b. The young of a similar animal, such as an antelope.
2.
a. The flesh of a young goat.
b. Leather made from the skin of a young goat; kidskin.
c. An article made from this leather.

Kid - definition of Kid by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

What was the first and primary definition? Oh yeah, "child or young person".

The first and primary is listed right there - look at it. Good grief - I made it so you didn't even have to click the link. The first five are all animals.

And I provided a link where "child or young person" was the primary definition. What, exactly, is the point you are trying to make sniveling about me saying "my kids"?

Do you get you undies in a bunch when someone uses the phrase "my kid brother"?

Again, this seems a vernacular difference that you want to make a condemnation of my parenting. Your insistence on doing so makes you look the fool.

I'm the only one posting facts - you're the one who can't read them (like the dictionary definition posted). Only one of us is a fool sweetie, and it sure as hell ain't me...

Really? You have a meltdown about the word "kids" which, according to all dictionaries, refers to a child or young person, and you think I'm looking the fool as a result? Yeah, you go with that.

Wow - where to begin with this absurd and inaccurate post....

First of all, the Supreme Court does not create rights . The Supreme Court is the Judicial branch of our government - laws (rights) come from the Legislative branch. The fact that this has to be explained to you means you really should be on a board discussing politics. Perhaps you could find a desperate housewives board that you could use to fill the void in your life?

You need to try "Schoolhouse Rock" again. The SCOTUS also rules on violations of the Constitution. Do I really have to explain this to you? They have, on no less than three occasions, declared marriage a fundamental right when legislators tried to deny that right to groups of people (like interracial couples, prison inmates and divorced couples).

I'm sure you can find a "desperate homophobes" board for yourself...

Second, the Supreme Court has not even ruled on gay marriage yet, much less ruled in your favor. What planet do you live on?

They will in a month. Wanna bet on the outcome? I bet the end result will be legal marriage in CA and Federal recognition of all legally married gay couples.

Not part of my offer, but extra credit, nationwide same sex marriage by 2018.

Third, marriage is not a right. In the 230+ years of the existence of the United States, marriage has never been a right. Heterosexual couples do not have a "right" to marriage.

Wrong. Would you like the cases?

TURNER v. SAFLEY
ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL
LOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA

Fourth, even the most radically liberal, left-wing ass backwards state in the entire union - California - shot down gay marriage. if you can't get that state to support your asinine agenda, good luck getting the entire nation to support.

A lot has happened since 2008, not just in CA where marriage equality now enjoys over 60% approval (it will be a moot point thanks to the SCOTUS), but also nationwide where marriage went over the majority support line. Don't you pay attention to current events?

You also sound like you'd like to stop us from having children...

Once again, the bigot (self-hating) bulldyke makes up her own version of reality

How am I "bigoted" and "self hating" exactly? Wow, and "bulldyke". How original.

Would you like to stop gays from having children if it were in your power to do so? What is the reality because the impression I get, like you stating my children should be deprived of one of their parents, leads me to believe you would. Feel free to dissuade me of the notion.

While I'm sure her comments were sincere, no one is attempting to take away one of her parents and her "argument"/testimony has no bearing on legal marriage. A greater point she probably doesn't know she made, is that parents who love you is a good thing. Just as you couldn't choose between your mom and your dad, some other kid wouldn't be able to choose between his mom and his other mom. it's not about their gender--it's because both parents love you so unconditionally and provide you with different gifts, traditions, etc.

You know how I know that you realize you are 100% wrong (and man do I love knowing that you realize it) - you get very scared of the issue and so you change the narrative. At no point did this 14 year old girl ever mention the word "choice" - yet you are obsessed with changing the narrative to that because you can't take this young lady head on (how sad).

She never said a child should "choose" anything. She asked the gay community which parent she doesn't need (and weeks later you still can't answer so you try to twist her words). Since you homosexuals believe that one gender is not necessary in raising a child properly, she wants you to tell her which of her parents she does not need. Well????

Her "argument" is what they call a "logical fallacy" in the vein of "when did you stop beating your wife" since no one is asking the naive young lady to give up either of her parents.

Since you are a gay female, should I assume that the answer for you is "her dad"? You believe her dad can be replaced by another woman? I'm asking - you won't answer (which really says it all, doesn't it?).

Since you are a complete idiot (hence the over reliance on a logical fallacy) my answer is the same as it has been...

nobody is trying to take away the kid's parents.

Kids do best in households where there are two parents to share in the responsibilities. Studies show that the gender of a parent matters in one area and one area only. Bet you can't guess what it is...

 

[Seawytch]

it's not about their gender--it's because both parents love you so unconditionally and provide you with different gifts, traditions, etc.

Yeah, um... just curious here, if it's (and I quote) "not about their gender", then why do you suppose that two women cannot create life? Why do you suppose that two men cannot create life? I mean, you'd think nature - of all forces - would figure out that it's (again, I quote) "not about their gender". How odd... not even some freak anomaly has created life from two men or from two women - even ONE time in the history of the world.

Now quick - do what you do best and run from this post. Try to change the narrative of it to something else so you don't have to acknowledge you are wrong...

Biology and parenting ability are not related.

"You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, to drive a car - hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they'll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father."

 

[hazlnut]

Good article....

Why Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

This shit jumps the retard shark right off the bat....

This dumb fucker doesn't know his shit from his asshole.

What Is Marriage?
Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces.[1] It is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that each child needs both a mother and a father.[2]

Marriage was traditionally a property deal -- a family patriarch exchanging his property (his underage daughter) for land, livestock, gold.

People were fucking and making babies long before the concept of marriage. And, today, people get married all the time and never have children.

So, fail.

Why Marriage Matters for Policy
Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does.

No. No. No.

Government recognizes marriage because it's still about property--the combining of assets, community property, and in 50% of the marriages, dissolution of marriage. Who gets what?

Government's main function is the governing of private and public property. That's why government can't "get out of the marriage business."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Good article....

Why Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

This shit jumps the retard shark right off the bat....

This dumb fucker doesn't know his shit from his asshole.

What Is Marriage?
Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces.[1] It is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that each child needs both a mother and a father.[2]

Marriage was traditionally a property deal -- a family patriarch exchanging his property (his underage daughter) for land, livestock, gold.

People were fucking and making babies long before the concept of marriage. And, today, people get married all the time and never have children.

So, fail.

Why Marriage Matters for Policy
Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does.

No. No. No.

Government recognizes marriage because it's still about property--the combining of assets, community property, and in 50% of the marriages, dissolution of marriage. Who gets what?

Government's main function is the governing of private and public property. That's why government can't "get out of the marriage business."

Correct.

Marriage is a legal, binding contract between two equal partners.

Marriage has been gender neutral for decades, and that something is perceived to be ‘traditional’ is legally irrelevant.

 

[P@triot]

nobody is trying to take away the kid's parents.

Well, you took a father away from your children. She's just asking which parent she doesn't need for people like you. Apparently you believe that father's are not necessary (since you deny your own children a father).

How interesting though that you're afraid to admit it. Just shows you know you're wrong...

 

[candycorn]

The fact is that kids do not need a mother and a father. If they did, it would be illegal to be a single parent. Instead, single women have babies all the time, and no one bats an eye.

Best post of the day!

Half of all hetero marriages end in divorce.....gays marrying cannot "hurt" the institution

 

[P@triot]

They will in a month. Wanna bet on the outcome? I bet the end result will be legal marriage in CA and Federal recognition of all legally married gay couples.

Except that you're not speaking from a position of knowledge - you're speaking from a place of irrational emotion. You want gay marriage to be a reality, so you're going to puff out your chest and scream "wanna bet"...

Sorry, not the least bit impressed by your pipe dreams. You have no idea what's going to happen Nostradamus (any more than I do). What I do know is that they have not ruled on it yet even though you're crowing in posts that they already have...

 

[P@triot]

Marriage was traditionally a property deal -- a family patriarch exchanging his property (his underage daughter) for land, livestock, gold.

And once again the progressive contradicts himself. How ironic that progressives are always screaming about "progress" and then want to cite marriage from the 1600's Europe as a reason for their asinine views on present day marriage.

We're in 2013 - join us, won't you?

 

[P@triot]

The fact is that kids do not need a mother and a father. If they did, it would be illegal to be a single parent. Instead, single women have babies all the time, and no one bats an eye.

Best post of the day!

Half of all hetero marriages end in divorce.....gays marrying cannot "hurt" the institution

And 100% of all people who contract Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease) will die from it. So I guess we should just give up on trying to cure it by your "logic", right?

 

[Nosmo King]

The fact is that kids do not need a mother and a father. If they did, it would be illegal to be a single parent. Instead, single women have babies all the time, and no one bats an eye.

Best post of the day!

Half of all hetero marriages end in divorce.....gays marrying cannot "hurt" the institution

And 100% of all people who contract Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease) will die from it. So I guess we should just give up on trying to cure it by your "logic", right?

Your 'logic' conflates Lou Gehrig's disease and a natural, immutable condition that is neither debilitating nor fatal (except for the bigotry heaped upon homosexuals by a few churlish boors in society).

You must believe that homosexuality is a disorder, a disease in and of itself. Why would you be in the shrinking backward minority to hold such incorrect and hateful ideas?

Homosexuals are asking, and rightly so, for tolerance, not demanding acceptance. Do you know the difference?

 

[candycorn]

The fact is that kids do not need a mother and a father. If they did, it would be illegal to be a single parent. Instead, single women have babies all the time, and no one bats an eye.

Best post of the day!

Half of all hetero marriages end in divorce.....gays marrying cannot "hurt" the institution

And 100% of all people who contract Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease) will die from it. So I guess we should just give up on trying to cure it by your "logic", right?

If you see marriage (and the logical episode of not everybody is compatible forever despite their best intentions) as a "disease" you should indeed give up since you are immune from logic.

 

[Seawytch]

nobody is trying to take away the kid's parents.

Well, you took a father away from your children. She's just asking which parent she doesn't need for people like you. Apparently you believe that father's are not necessary (since you deny your own children a father).

How interesting though that you're afraid to admit it. Just shows you know you're wrong...

No father was "taken away" from our children. They don't have a father and never did. They have two mothers and a donor (we used a known donor so they know he is their donor, but do not view him as a parent).

I've provided peer reviewed studies and position statements from major medical and pediatric associations that all come to the same conclusion...that our children are at no disadvantage to yours.

You've provided your opinion to the contrary.

Children have the best results in stable, married households regardless of the gender of their parents. Study after study shows that. You still haven't ventured a guess at the ONLY area where gender matters. Wassa matta, chicken?I'll give you a hint...it's not peeing standing up.

 

[Seawytch]

They will in a month. Wanna bet on the outcome? I bet the end result will be legal marriage in CA and Federal recognition of all legally married gay couples.

Except that you're not speaking from a position of knowledge - you're speaking from a place of irrational emotion. You want gay marriage to be a reality, so you're going to puff out your chest and scream "wanna bet"...

Sorry, not the least bit impressed by your pipe dreams. You have no idea what's going to happen Nostradamus (any more than I do). What I do know is that they have not ruled on it yet even though you're crowing in posts that they already have...

Okay, then you should have no problem taking my bet. I say gay marriage in CA and Federal recognition of all same gender marriages and I'll give you the choice...sig line or avatar. What say you?

 

[P@triot]

Best post of the day!

Half of all hetero marriages end in divorce.....gays marrying cannot "hurt" the institution

And 100% of all people who contract Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease) will die from it. So I guess we should just give up on trying to cure it by your "logic", right?

If you see marriage (and the logical episode of not everybody is compatible forever despite their best intentions) as a "disease" you should indeed give up since you are immune from logic.

Do run from the question - you essentially claim that we should give up on traditional marriage because it has (according to you) a 50% failure rate.

Well so do many things - should we give up on all of them?

Ever notice that the rise in the rates of failed marriage correlates perfectly with the rise if the disease known as liberalism?

 

[P@triot]

nobody is trying to take away the kid's parents.

Well, you took a father away from your children. She's just asking which parent she doesn't need for people like you. Apparently you believe that father's are not necessary (since you deny your own children a father).

How interesting though that you're afraid to admit it. Just shows you know you're wrong...

No father was "taken away" from our children. They don't have a father and never did. They have two mothers and a donor (we used a known donor so they know he is their donor, but do not view him as a parent).

I've provided peer reviewed studies and position statements from major medical and pediatric associations that all come to the same conclusion...that our children are at no disadvantage to yours.

You've provided your opinion to the contrary.

Children have the best results in stable, married households regardless of the gender of their parents. Study after study shows that. You still haven't ventured a guess at the ONLY area where gender matters. Wassa matta, chicken?I'll give you a hint...it's not peeing standing up.

Still running from the question (you must be in phenomenal shape as much running as you do from straight forward questions).

I never said you "took away" their father. I said you denied them their father (you can't take away what you denied in the first place). Want to try again?

Run Seawytch Run!!!!

 

[P@triot]

Your 'logic' conflates Lou Gehrig's disease and a natural, immutable condition that is neither debilitating nor fatal (except for the bigotry heaped upon homosexuals by a few churlish boors in society).

I didn't "conflate" anything genius - I simply used Candycorn's complete lack of logic against himself. If citing failure rates of 50% is a reason to give up on marriage, then we have to give up on all things with a 50% failure rate or worse.

And you know it too - you're just throwing a hissy because liberals hate consistency which exposes the contradictions in their own absurd ideology.

You must believe that homosexuality is a disorder, a disease in and of itself. Why would you be in the shrinking backward minority to hold such incorrect and hateful ideas?

And you must be a pedophile... Why would you be in the sick, twisted, dark minority who get off on touching innocent children and destroy their lives?

(Hint: if you're going to make wild and completely irrational accusations about me, I will do the same thing to your dumb ass).

For the record, I do believe liberalism is a disorder, a disease in and of itself. In fact, I'm 100% certain of it.

Homosexuals are asking, and rightly so, for tolerance, not demanding acceptance. Do you know the difference?

What?!? They already are accepted stupid! This is not the Middle East - we do not torture and stone homosexuals to death.

And we are way past "demanding acceptance" with the homosexual community. They long ago moved on to demanding special treatment and additional rights (stems from their view of themselves as victims since they were born "different").

 

[Seawytch]

Well, you took a father away from your children. She's just asking which parent she doesn't need for people like you. Apparently you believe that father's are not necessary (since you deny your own children a father).

How interesting though that you're afraid to admit it. Just shows you know you're wrong...

No father was "taken away" from our children. They don't have a father and never did. They have two mothers and a donor (we used a known donor so they know he is their donor, but do not view him as a parent).

I've provided peer reviewed studies and position statements from major medical and pediatric associations that all come to the same conclusion...that our children are at no disadvantage to yours.

You've provided your opinion to the contrary.

Children have the best results in stable, married households regardless of the gender of their parents. Study after study shows that. You still haven't ventured a guess at the ONLY area where gender matters. Wassa matta, chicken?I'll give you a hint...it's not peeing standing up.

Still running from the question (you must be in phenomenal shape as much running as you do from straight forward questions).

I never said you "took away" their father. I said you denied them their father (you can't take away what you denied in the first place). Want to try again?

Run Seawytch Run!!!!

They are "denied" nothing. They have two parents that love them unconditionally which is all kids need. Do you know how many children are being raised in single parent households? That's who you should worry about, not kids raised in stable, loving homes.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And 100% of all people who contract Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease) will die from it. So I guess we should just give up on trying to cure it by your "logic", right?

If you see marriage (and the logical episode of not everybody is compatible forever despite their best intentions) as a "disease" you should indeed give up since you are immune from logic.

Do run from the question - you essentially claim that we should give up on traditional marriage because it has (according to you) a 50% failure rate.

Well so do many things - should we give up on all of them?

Ever notice that the rise in the rates of failed marriage correlates perfectly with the rise if the disease known as liberalism?

No one is advocating ‘giving up’ on traditional marriage, particularly same-sex couples. They obviously believe in the institution and want to strengthen it with their unions, which is their right to do. They should be applauded and supported.