Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[Murhy]

Sperm egg and oven. None of those are what makes someone a parent.

No - but it is what makes a baby. And there is a reason for that (even if you can't bring yourself to admit it).

No, I just described what makes a baby. It's what comes afterwards that matters...and what makes a parent.

Males and Females are biologically designed at the genetic level to supply their offspring with exactly what they need to survive. Together. Homosexuals CANT have babies. Not possible.

This isnt an issue of rights...its an issue of Biology...and that makes it a totally seperate issue from equality

The issue is what a child is missing if either a mother or father is absent.

The answer is that they are missing something. That cant be argued. Its biological. What can be argued is whether its a bad thing or not...but that really doesnt matter.

However, what does matter, is that we live in a society today where many children have NEITHER a mother NOR a father.

In this case, even though a nuclear family is prefered, if a gay couple is seen to be fit to raise and love a child, it would inarguably be better to have 50% of our biological puzzle, rather than 0%.

Would it be better for a child to live in an orphanage.....or with homosexual parents who love them? I feel like its a pretty simple question to answer.

 

[Seawytch]

Males and Females are biologically designed at the genetic level to supply their offspring with exactly what they need to survive.

No, they are given what is biologically required to create life, learning to "survive" comes from parents and in that gender is irrelevant.

Together. Homosexuals CANT have babies. Not possible.

Of course we can..just like infertile heterosexual couples do...with science.

This isnt an issue of rights...its an issue of Biology...and that makes it a totally seperate issue from equality

No it isn't, biology is completely immaterial when it comes to both marriage and parenting.

The issue is what a child is missing if either a mother or father is absent.


The answer is that they are missing something. That cant be argued. Its biological. What can be argued is whether its a bad thing or not...but that really doesnt matter.

They aren't missing anything, as I've already pointed out on this thread multiple times.

In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.

Do Children Need Both a Mother and a Father?

However, what does matter, is that we live in a society today where many children have NEITHER a mother NOR a father.

In this case, even though a nuclear family is prefered, if a gay couple is seen to be fit to raise and love a child, it would inarguably be better to have 50% of our biological puzzle, rather than 0%.

Would it be better for a child to live in an orphanage.....or with homosexual parents who love them? I feel like its a pretty simple question to answer.

How about parenting has absolutely nothing to do with legal, civil marriage one way or the other.

 

[P@triot]

How about parenting has absolutely nothing to do with legal, civil marriage one way or the other.

And she keeps going further off of the cliff of sanity...

When she wants to bilk the system for all it is worth, well then she "just like everybody else and entitled to the same benefits". But when it's pointed out how homosexuals are completely incapable of creating offspring, her narrative suddenly changes to "parenting has absolutely nothing to do with legal, civil marriage one way or the other". Uh, what?!? Isn't that what you built your entire weak argument on originally - that you are a parent just like everyone else, that you're children don't experience any lack of parenting just like everyone else, and that that entitles you to benefits?

 

[P@triot]

Together. Homosexuals CANT have babies. Not possible.

Of course we can..just like infertile heterosexual couples do...with science.

First - comparing heterosexual couples who have some anomaly that prevents or impedes their process of reproducing to homosexuals who simply can't reproduce when they are perfectly healthy and no anomaly exists is one of the most absurd comments in world history (and really illustrates just how unhinged you are). In fact, homosexuals are so incapable that an extreme anomaly in the exact opposite direction of the unfortunate heterosexual couples cannot even create offspring.

Second - and more importantly - you're lying through your teeth (what else is knew, uh?). No science or technology in the world can make two women or two men reproduce. Two women will ALWAYS need to go outside of their relationship and obtain sperm from an external source. Two men will ALWAYS need to go outside of their relationship and obtain eggs from an external source. And two men then have the additional impediment of not being able to carry a fetus, requiring an external source yet again for that purpose.

Homosexuals simply cannot reproduce. Period. It has NEVER happened in the history of the world - not even one extreme anomaly - and it never will. And this indisputable fact alone is enough for rational, intelligent people to realize that gay marriage is absurd, unnecessary, and all about bilking the system for benefits.

 

[P@triot]

No it isn't, biology is completely immaterial when it comes to both marriage and parenting.

If it weren't for biology, parenting couldn't even exist

It's just painful trying to have a rational discussion with libtards...

 

[Seawytch]

No it isn't, biology is completely immaterial when it comes to both marriage and parenting.

If it weren't for biology, parenting couldn't even exist

It's just painful trying to have a rational discussion with libtards...

You're confusing siring with parenting...as any abandoned mother could tell you.

 

[Seawytch]

How about parenting has absolutely nothing to do with legal, civil marriage one way or the other.

And she keeps going further off of the cliff of sanity...

When she wants to bilk the system for all it is worth, well then she "just like everybody else and entitled to the same benefits". But when it's pointed out how homosexuals are completely incapable of creating offspring, her narrative suddenly changes to "parenting has absolutely nothing to do with legal, civil marriage one way or the other". Uh, what?!? Isn't that what you built your entire weak argument on originally - that you are a parent just like everyone else, that you're children don't experience any lack of parenting just like everyone else, and that that entitles you to benefits?

My narrative hasn't changed, Puppy, but yours grows increasingly desperate. Children are not a requirement for Civil Marriage in ANY state or municipality and some, in fact, prohibit procreation based on close familial ties. To use an inability to procreate as a reason to do deny civil marriage is ludicrous and even drew big laughs with the SCOTUS.

(Rather like you do with your posts)

 

[Seawytch]

Together. Homosexuals CANT have babies. Not possible.

Of course we can..just like infertile heterosexual couples do...with science.

First - comparing heterosexual couples who have some anomaly that prevents or impedes their process of reproducing to homosexuals who simply can't reproduce when they are perfectly healthy and no anomaly exists is one of the most absurd comments in world history (and really illustrates just how unhinged you are). In fact, homosexuals are so incapable that an extreme anomaly in the exact opposite direction of the unfortunate heterosexual couples cannot even create offspring.

Second - and more importantly - you're lying through your teeth (what else is knew, uh?). No science or technology in the world can make two women or two men reproduce. Two women will ALWAYS need to go outside of their relationship and obtain sperm from an external source. Two men will ALWAYS need to go outside of their relationship and obtain eggs from an external source. And two men then have the additional impediment of not being able to carry a fetus, requiring an external source yet again for that purpose.

Homosexuals simply cannot reproduce. Period. It has NEVER happened in the history of the world - not even one extreme anomaly - and it never will. And this indisputable fact alone is enough for rational, intelligent people to realize that gay marriage is absurd, unnecessary, and all about bilking the system for benefits.

But we do reproduce, as I am proof positive of. Not only do my partner and I have two children of our own, but I bore three children for a gay male couple. We have kids, Puppy and we adopt 'em too.

Not that it matters since breeding isn't a prerequisite for Civil Marriage.

 

[mal]

How about parenting has absolutely nothing to do with legal, civil marriage one way or the other.

And she keeps going further off of the cliff of sanity...

When she wants to bilk the system for all it is worth, well then she "just like everybody else and entitled to the same benefits". But when it's pointed out how homosexuals are completely incapable of creating offspring, her narrative suddenly changes to "parenting has absolutely nothing to do with legal, civil marriage one way or the other". Uh, what?!? Isn't that what you built your entire weak argument on originally - that you are a parent just like everyone else, that you're children don't experience any lack of parenting just like everyone else, and that that entitles you to benefits?

My narrative hasn't changed, Puppy, but yours grows increasingly desperate. Children are not a requirement for Civil Marriage in ANY state or municipality and some, in fact, prohibit procreation based on close familial ties. To use an inability to procreate as a reason to do deny civil marriage is ludicrous and even drew big laughs with the SCOTUS.

(Rather like you do with your posts)

Your Demands of an Exclusionary Expanion of Special Marriage Rights based Soley on your Defiance of your Natural Design and Equipment is what's Laughable...

If you Deserve Marriage Rights for your Coupling then so do Siblings who Care for Children and so do Sister Wives and Bisexuals.

Ultimately Marriage is a Reflection of what Created you...

And that is only Possible with Man and Wife.

The only reason you Demand Marriage for your Choice is because it Lacks the Validation on it's own that you so Desperately need from Society.

Unlike with a Black Man and a White Woman who can Create Life, you will NEVER be Viewed as Equal in your Choice in Society's eyes regardless of what the Law says.

We were not Designed in Nature to Couple with the Same Sex... End of Fucking List.

That's never going to change.



peace...

 

[Londoner]

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.

Exactly. The state should merely be handing out contracts to consenting adults, not defining the correct moral context for raising children. The burden of creating that context should be left to the individual. Only republicans want Washington to define every aspect of the individual's life.

The fact that two same sex people were given a marriage contract by the government does not change my life at all because I don't look to the government to shape what is sacred for me. What two consenting adults do - as long as they are not harming other people - is none of my concern. When are republicans going to stop putting Washington at the center of every issue?

 

[P@triot]

But we do reproduce, as I am proof positive of. Not only do my partner and I have two children of our own, but I bore three children for a gay male couple. We have kids, Puppy and we adopt 'em too.

Not that it matters since breeding isn't a prerequisite for Civil Marriage.

So a DNA test on your children will come back a perfect match for both of you on each of them, right?

You don't have your own children. And adopting is not "having your own children" (that is taking legal responsibility for someone else's children).

 

[P@triot]

And she keeps going further off of the cliff of sanity...

When she wants to bilk the system for all it is worth, well then she "just like everybody else and entitled to the same benefits". But when it's pointed out how homosexuals are completely incapable of creating offspring, her narrative suddenly changes to "parenting has absolutely nothing to do with legal, civil marriage one way or the other". Uh, what?!? Isn't that what you built your entire weak argument on originally - that you are a parent just like everyone else, that you're children don't experience any lack of parenting just like everyone else, and that that entitles you to benefits?

My narrative hasn't changed, Puppy, but yours grows increasingly desperate. Children are not a requirement for Civil Marriage in ANY state or municipality and some, in fact, prohibit procreation based on close familial ties. To use an inability to procreate as a reason to do deny civil marriage is ludicrous and even drew big laughs with the SCOTUS.

(Rather like you do with your posts)

Your Demands of an Exclusionary Expanion of Special Marriage Rights based Soley on your Defiance of your Natural Design and Equipment is what's Laughable...

If you Deserve Marriage Rights for your Coupling then so do Siblings who Care for Children and so do Sister Wives and Bisexuals.

Ultimately Marriage is a Reflection of what Created you...

And that is only Possible with Man and Wife.

The only reason you Demand Marriage for your Choice is because it Lacks the Validation on it's own that you so Desperately need from Society.

Unlike with a Black Man and a White Woman who can Create Life, you will NEVER be Viewed as Equal in your Choice in Society's eyes regardless of what the Law says.

We were not Designed in Nature to Couple with the Same Sex... End of Fucking List.

That's never going to change.



peace...

 

[P@triot]

Exactly. The state should merely be handing out contracts to consenting adults, not defining the correct moral context for raising children. The burden of creating that context should be left to the individual. Only republicans want Washington to define every aspect of the individual's life.

The fact that two same sex people were given a marriage contract by the government does not change my life at all because I don't look to the government to shape what is sacred for me. What two consenting adults do - as long as they are not harming other people - is none of my concern. When are republicans going to stop putting Washington at the center of every issue?

The next time a libtard writes more than one sentence and doesn't contradict themselves will be the first time in libtard history that that has happened....

In her first sentence, she wants the state "handing out contracts". In the next sentence, she's screaming that "only" Republicans want government involved in private life. It never stops being unreal...

 

[P@triot]

No puppy, it's not about "bilking the system". It's about getting the same protections for my family that you have for yours.

It's called a life insurance policy you cheap freaking libtard parasite. Go buy a million dollar policy and your pitiful little military pension won't be the least bit missed. You're significant other and all of your children will be very comfortable should something unfortunate occur (and you won't have to spend you're life fighting against the will of the American people).

See how simple life is when you take something called personal responsibility? It's exasperating watching you parasites cry that the U.S. government and the American people owe you all of your wants and desires.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No puppy, it's not about "bilking the system". It's about getting the same protections for my family that you have for yours.

It's called a life insurance policy you cheap freaking libtard parasite. Go buy a million dollar policy and your pitiful little military pension won't be the least bit missed. You're significant other and all of your children will be very comfortable should something unfortunate occur (and you won't have to spend you're life fighting against the will of the American people).

See how simple life is when you take something called personal responsibility? It's exasperating watching you parasites cry that the U.S. government and the American people owe you all of your wants and desires.

Maybe you should write to Secretary Hagel and tell him that DOD should do away with Suvivor Benefit Plan options for retired military spouses (which are available whether or not the couple has children) and that those retiree's benefits that were earned are over. That if they want to their spouses taken care of they should go out and get a million dollar life insurance policy instead of them feeling the American people owe them something.


Ya do that, see how well it goes over.


>>>>

 

[P@triot]

No puppy, it's not about "bilking the system". It's about getting the same protections for my family that you have for yours.

It's called a life insurance policy you cheap freaking libtard parasite. Go buy a million dollar policy and your pitiful little military pension won't be the least bit missed. You're significant other and all of your children will be very comfortable should something unfortunate occur (and you won't have to spend you're life fighting against the will of the American people).

See how simple life is when you take something called personal responsibility? It's exasperating watching you parasites cry that the U.S. government and the American people owe you all of your wants and desires.

Maybe you should write to Secretary Hagel and tell him that DOD should do away with Suvivor Benefit Plan options for retired military spouses (which are available whether or not the couple has children) and that those retiree's benefits that were earned are over. That if they want to their spouses taken care of they should go out and get a million dollar life insurance policy instead of them feeling the American people owe them something.


Ya do that, see how well it goes over.


>>>>

Except that those people you are referring to are legally married - and did so without having to redefine what marriage is. Case Closed.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's called a life insurance policy you cheap freaking libtard parasite. Go buy a million dollar policy and your pitiful little military pension won't be the least bit missed. You're significant other and all of your children will be very comfortable should something unfortunate occur (and you won't have to spend you're life fighting against the will of the American people).

See how simple life is when you take something called personal responsibility? It's exasperating watching you parasites cry that the U.S. government and the American people owe you all of your wants and desires.

Maybe you should write to Secretary Hagel and tell him that DOD should do away with Suvivor Benefit Plan options for retired military spouses (which are available whether or not the couple has children) and that those retiree's benefits that were earned are over. That if they want to their spouses taken care of they should go out and get a million dollar life insurance policy instead of them feeling the American people owe them something.


Ya do that, see how well it goes over.


>>>>

Except that those people you are referring to are legally married - and did so without having to redefine what marriage is. Case Closed.

Seawytch is legally married. IIRC she was married during the period when Same-sex Civil Marriage was legal in California.

And since Same-sex Civil Marriage is legal in 10 legal entities and with the repeal of DADT, there are more service members that are now legally Civilly Married.

So no, it's not case closed.

For Seawytch, again IIRC, probably retired before the repeal of DADT and the Military Survivor Benefit Plan is a life insurance policy that the retiree pays for out of their retirement check and is a one time option at the time of retirement, she probably doesn't have that option. However there legally married folks that are or will be denied that option.

>>>>

 

[P@triot]

Maybe you should write to Secretary Hagel and tell him that DOD should do away with Suvivor Benefit Plan options for retired military spouses (which are available whether or not the couple has children) and that those retiree's benefits that were earned are over. That if they want to their spouses taken care of they should go out and get a million dollar life insurance policy instead of them feeling the American people owe them something.


Ya do that, see how well it goes over.


>>>>

Except that those people you are referring to are legally married - and did so without having to redefine what marriage is. Case Closed.

Seawytch is legally married. IIRC she was married during the period when Same-sex Civil Marriage was legal in California.

And since Same-sex Civil Marriage is legal in 10 legal entities and with the repeal of DADT, there are more service members that are now legally Civilly Married.

So no, it's not case closed.

For Seawytch, again IIRC, probably retired before the repeal of DADT and the Military Survivor Benefit Plan is a life insurance policy that the retiree pays for out of their retirement check and is a one time option at the time of retirement, she probably doesn't have that option. However there legally married folks that are or will be denied that option.

>>>>

She was legally married at the state level (a state, mind you, which has since voted against gay marriage) - but she's demanding to be recognized at the federal level for federal benefits. So yes, case closed.

It's amazing how the left never did grasp the concept of local vs state vs federal levels of government. It's like how the scream that Mitt Romney implemented "Obamacare" and that conservatives are "hypocrites" because of it. Mitt Romney did not implement his healthcare plan nationally at the federal level. But you'll have more success explaining that to a toddler than you will a brainwashed libtard which can only understand what MSNBC spoon-feeds them.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Except that those people you are referring to are legally married - and did so without having to redefine what marriage is. Case Closed.

Seawytch is legally married. IIRC she was married during the period when Same-sex Civil Marriage was legal in California.

And since Same-sex Civil Marriage is legal in 10 legal entities and with the repeal of DADT, there are more service members that are now legally Civilly Married.

So no, it's not case closed.

For Seawytch, again IIRC, probably retired before the repeal of DADT and the Military Survivor Benefit Plan is a life insurance policy that the retiree pays for out of their retirement check and is a one time option at the time of retirement, she probably doesn't have that option. However there legally married folks that are or will be denied that option.

>>>>

She was legally married at the state level (a state, mind you, which has since voted against gay marriage) - but she's demanding to be recognized at the federal level for federal benefits. So yes, case closed.

It's amazing how the left never did grasp the concept of local vs state vs federal levels of government. It's like how the scream that Mitt Romney implemented "Obamacare" and that conservatives are "hypocrites" because of it. Mitt Romney did not implement his healthcare plan nationally at the federal level. But you'll have more success explaining that to a toddler than you will a brainwashed libtard which can only understand what MSNBC spoon-feeds them.

You said she wasn't legally married, you were incorrect she is legally married by one of the entities in this country that issues the legal status of "married". Last I checked the federal government doesn't issue marriage licenses.

What she rallies against is the federal government discriminating against legally married couples based on gender, recognizing some legally valid Civil Marriages but not others.

The fact that those that oppose Marriage Equality didn't read their own laws and Constitution that they were trying to change, i.e. the provision of the California Constitution that states that initiatives become effective the day after the election is their own fault. Therefore Prop 8 did not invalidate her marriage which occurred prior to election day in 2008 and it's subsequent passage are irrelevant to discussion.

Finally, I've been a Republican since I turned 18 in 1978. You? I've been against ObamaCare since it's inception. I'm also against the government discriminating against it's citizen's for no compelling government interest.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

Except that those people you are referring to are legally married - and did so without having to redefine what marriage is. Case Closed.

Seawytch is legally married. IIRC she was married during the period when Same-sex Civil Marriage was legal in California.

And since Same-sex Civil Marriage is legal in 10 legal entities and with the repeal of DADT, there are more service members that are now legally Civilly Married.

So no, it's not case closed.

For Seawytch, again IIRC, probably retired before the repeal of DADT and the Military Survivor Benefit Plan is a life insurance policy that the retiree pays for out of their retirement check and is a one time option at the time of retirement, she probably doesn't have that option. However there legally married folks that are or will be denied that option.

>>>>

She was legally married at the state level (a state, mind you, which has since voted against gay marriage) - but she's demanding to be recognized at the federal level for federal benefits. So yes, case closed.

Actually, the "case" was just heard by the SCOTUS and their ruling on it will be coming out in a few short weeks. When they strike down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional my legal marriage will be recognized by the Federal government.

Not even then will the "case" be closed.