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

[80zephyr]

Remember, all the evidence you ignore.....we can still see it. Pretending none of it exists just demonstrates that your position is founded in willful ignorance

And of course, your insistence that we 'void' all same sex marriages doesn't do a thing to address what you consider the 'problem'. As same sex parents denied marriage are still same sex parents. All denying those parents marriage does is guarantee that their children never have married parents.

Which hurts those children and help no child.

See how that works? Your proposal is worse than useless.

No more so than yours.

On the contrary, the courts have gone into elaborate detail as to all the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage. And all the benefits to children when their parents are allowed to marry.

The benefits to those children make my proposal far better than 'useless'. Where as Sil can't even explain how denying marriage same sex parents helps their children. Or any child.

A set of married parents means a father and a mother. You only hurt a child by giving him a mockery of what he needs, in place of what he really needs.

Here are some of the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage:

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 samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

Now, with some of the serious harms listed, tell us....how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

Sil has never been able to give us any credible answer. And instead insists that they should be harmed. Perhaps you can do better.

I am still waiting also.

I know my marriage hasn't been harmed because gay couples can get married.
I know my daughter is not harmed because children of gay couples can now have married parents.

Who are these fictional children who are harmed because Bob can marry Bill?

Bob appears to have run from the question like it was on fire. Sil has never done any better.

The reason is simple: denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.

Which hurts those children and helps none.

I'll answer it. Its very simple. Same sex couples don't have children.

Next question?

Mark

 

[Skylar]

Another classic. Name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes? You can't b/c it hasn't and nor should it happen. Remember, Kim Davis isn't a church.

If present direction continues, then it will happen.

The line was crossed when bakers, photographers, and similar businesses were force by law to cater to disgusting homosexual mockeries of weddingsd.

The line was crossed when Christians were told that they didn't get to ignore the law because they suddenly discovered they were Christians when they were asked to bake a cake for a gay couple.

Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.

Then there is no freedom of religion, and America is dead.

Mark

If Christians are subject to the law, there is no freedom of religion?

Are Muslims equally free from any civil law? Does Sharia trump civil law?

Sharia law is not the religion of Islam.

According to who? I'm pretty sure that the Bible never mentions not issuing marriage certificates to same sex couples. But a Christian insisted her religious beliefs forbid it just the same.

Why would a Muslim not be able to make the same claims regarding any law they don't like?

If they felt their religion mandates something and the law forbid it....wouldn't that mean there is no freedom of religion?

 

[HenryBHough]

I read with interest the question of how a 2-male set of parents might explain menstruation to a female child - no matter how begotten.

The answer is quite simple.

Elect Nutty Old Uncle Bernie and government will assign a tax-paid employee to handle all that delicate stuff. However you'll have to accept that the employee may be female, male, or undecided.

 

[Skylar]

Remember, all the evidence you ignore.....we can still see it. Pretending none of it exists just demonstrates that your position is founded in willful ignorance

And of course, your insistence that we 'void' all same sex marriages doesn't do a thing to address what you consider the 'problem'. As same sex parents denied marriage are still same sex parents. All denying those parents marriage does is guarantee that their children never have married parents.

Which hurts those children and help no child.

See how that works? Your proposal is worse than useless.

No more so than yours.

On the contrary, the courts have gone into elaborate detail as to all the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage. And all the benefits to children when their parents are allowed to marry.

The benefits to those children make my proposal far better than 'useless'. Where as Sil can't even explain how denying marriage same sex parents helps their children. Or any child.

A set of married parents means a father and a mother. You only hurt a child by giving him a mockery of what he needs, in place of what he really needs.

Here are some of the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage:

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 samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

Now, with some of the serious harms listed, tell us....how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

Sil has never been able to give us any credible answer. And instead insists that they should be harmed. Perhaps you can do better.

I am still waiting also.

I know my marriage hasn't been harmed because gay couples can get married.
I know my daughter is not harmed because children of gay couples can now have married parents.

Who are these fictional children who are harmed because Bob can marry Bill?

Bob appears to have run from the question like it was on fire. Sil has never done any better.

The reason is simple: denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.

Which hurts those children and helps none.

I'll answer it. Its very simple. Same sex couples don't have children.

Next question?

Mark

Sure they do. Through the same processes used by couples who adopt or when one of the partners is sterile.

So how would denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'll answer it. Its very simple. Same sex couples don't have children.

Does that go for opposite couples, who can't make babies?

 

[Asclepias]

Remember, all the evidence you ignore.....we can still see it. Pretending none of it exists just demonstrates that your position is founded in willful ignorance

And of course, your insistence that we 'void' all same sex marriages doesn't do a thing to address what you consider the 'problem'. As same sex parents denied marriage are still same sex parents. All denying those parents marriage does is guarantee that their children never have married parents.

Which hurts those children and help no child.

See how that works? Your proposal is worse than useless.

No more so than yours.

On the contrary, the courts have gone into elaborate detail as to all the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage. And all the benefits to children when their parents are allowed to marry.

The benefits to those children make my proposal far better than 'useless'. Where as Sil can't even explain how denying marriage same sex parents helps their children. Or any child.

A set of married parents means a father and a mother. You only hurt a child by giving him a mockery of what he needs, in place of what he really needs.

Here are some of the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage:

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 samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

Now, with some of the serious harms listed, tell us....how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

Sil has never been able to give us any credible answer. And instead insists that they should be harmed. Perhaps you can do better.

I am still waiting also.

I know my marriage hasn't been harmed because gay couples can get married.
I know my daughter is not harmed because children of gay couples can now have married parents.

Who are these fictional children who are harmed because Bob can marry Bill?

Bob appears to have run from the question like it was on fire. Sil has never done any better.

The reason is simple: denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.

Which hurts those children and helps none.

I'll answer it. Its very simple. Same sex couples don't have children.

Next question?

Mark

Why do you believe this to be true? I've seen plenty of same sex couples raising children. I dated a girl raised by two lesbians.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That's interesting...where do you suppose the babies they're "parenting" came from? Were they born out another man's anus (artificial vagina)? Or were they sired by a lesbian's strapon? Poor you. Biology alone tells us your platfom is patently insane..

Don't forget that you're arguing with someone who probably believes that Bruce Jenner is a woman.

Liberalism is madness, and the LGBpbWTF branch thereof doubly so.

 

[Skylar]

I read with interest the question of how a 2-male set of parents might explain menstruation to a female child - no matter how begotten.

The answer is quite simple.

Elect Nutty Old Uncle Bernie and government will assign a tax-paid employee to handle all that delicate stuff. However you'll have to accept that the employee may be female, male, or undecided.

Or have an aunt, grandmother, older sister, family friend, mentor, coach, pastor, etc tell them. What children need are positive same sex role models. There's nothing that requires that these role models be parents.

 

[Skylar]

That's interesting...where do you suppose the babies they're "parenting" came from? Were they born out another man's anus (artificial vagina)? Or were they sired by a lesbian's strapon? Poor you. Biology alone tells us your platfom is patently insane..

Don't forget that you're arguing with someone who probably believes that Bruce Jenner is a woman.

Liberalism is madness, and the LGBpbWTF branch thereof doubly so.

Can you quote me saying that? Or is that just another red herring?

 

[bodecea]

Remember, all the evidence you ignore.....we can still see it. Pretending none of it exists just demonstrates that your position is founded in willful ignorance

And of course, your insistence that we 'void' all same sex marriages doesn't do a thing to address what you consider the 'problem'. As same sex parents denied marriage are still same sex parents. All denying those parents marriage does is guarantee that their children never have married parents.

Which hurts those children and help no child.

See how that works? Your proposal is worse than useless.

No more so than yours.

On the contrary, the courts have gone into elaborate detail as to all the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage. And all the benefits to children when their parents are allowed to marry.

The benefits to those children make my proposal far better than 'useless'. Where as Sil can't even explain how denying marriage same sex parents helps their children. Or any child.

A set of married parents means a father and a mother. You only hurt a child by giving him a mockery of what he needs, in place of what he really needs.

Here are some of the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage:

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 samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

Now, with some of the serious harms listed, tell us....how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

Sil has never been able to give us any credible answer. And instead insists that they should be harmed. Perhaps you can do better.

I am still waiting also.

I know my marriage hasn't been harmed because gay couples can get married.
I know my daughter is not harmed because children of gay couples can now have married parents.

Who are these fictional children who are harmed because Bob can marry Bill?

Bob appears to have run from the question like it was on fire. Sil has never done any better.

The reason is simple: denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.

Which hurts those children and helps none.

I'll answer it. Its very simple. Same sex couples don't have children.

Next question?

Mark

Our daughter would be very surprised to hear that.

 

[Asclepias]

That's interesting...where do you suppose the babies they're "parenting" came from? Were they born out another man's anus (artificial vagina)? Or were they sired by a lesbian's strapon? Poor you. Biology alone tells us your platfom is patently insane..

Don't forget that you're arguing with someone who probably believes that Bruce Jenner is a woman.

Liberalism is madness, and the LGBpbWTF branch thereof doubly so.

No one is arguing. We are pointing out the fallacy in his position and he is having a hard time coming to terms with it.

 

[bodecea]

Another classic. Name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes? You can't b/c it hasn't and nor should it happen. Remember, Kim Davis isn't a church.

If present direction continues, then it will happen.

The line was crossed when bakers, photographers, and similar businesses were force by law to cater to disgusting homosexual mockeries of weddingsd.

The line was crossed when Christians were told that they didn't get to ignore the law because they suddenly discovered they were Christians when they were asked to bake a cake for a gay couple.

Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.

Then there is no freedom of religion, and America is dead.

Mark

So you don't think christians have to follow the law? They have their own sharia law?

 

[80zephyr]

The reason is simple: denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.

Which hurts those children and helps none.

There is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex. Marriage, by definition, always has been, and will always be, between a man and a woman.

You do not help children by offering them a fraudulent mockery, and insisting that it is the same as the genuine thing that is being mocked.

Definitions change. Matter of fact gay used to mean happy.

No, definitions do not change. Stupid people tell us they change. We now have "definitions" that tell us a man is a woman, a white is a black, and a middle aged man is really a six year old girl.

We have "transabled" people that tell us that they REALLY are disabled, and trans species people that tell us they really are a cat.

Reality tells us one thing, and delusional people tell us we are wrong.

We're not.

We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.
George Orwell

Mark

 

[Skylar]

Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.

The Constitution is the highest law, in this nation, and the First Amendment is part of it. You cannot advocate such blatant disregard for it, and still credibly speak of any rule of law.

The 1st amendment doesn't mean that Christians or any religion can ignore every law. It never has. You're describing Christian Sharia, where any Christian can ignore any law they wish.

That's not our system or law.

Says who?

The Supreme Court and our history of laws.

"To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is 'compelling' - permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, 'to become a law unto himself,' contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.' To adopt a true 'compelling interest' requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy."

Religion doesn't exempt you from any law you don't like.

Get used to the idea.

If a conscientious Christian cant live his life according to his religion, then the 1st Amendment is less than worthless because he basically has to "drop out" of society, forcing him to become a second class citizen.

Mark

Would the same apply to a conscientious Muslim? If they felt that living under Sharia were living their life according to their religion.....does Sharia similarly trump any civil law?

If not, why not? Remember, when you raise religious belief above any law.....you do it for any religion. And any belief.

 

[EverCurious]

My folks divorced when I was 5, my mom was remarried when I was 7 and I was raised calling my step-father "Father" - in fact I still do today. Oddly I never had any trouble understanding or 'coping' with the fact that my step-father wasn't my bio father and it never mattered at all to me. Why exactly would it be 'unsettling' or 'difficult' for a child in a gay coupling to know that they're parents did not /actually/ conceive them?

Edit: also my mother never talked to me about jack shit but not "embarrassing" her. She never discussed menstruation, never talked about sex, none of that shit. Hell she couldn't even take time off work to teach me to cook. I turned out just fine - can burn water, but my boys know how to cook so it worked out heh

According to the poll on this thread, you are a rarity. Do you agree?

Mark

hmmm In some ways yes, but in a lot of ways no. Almost everyone I knew growing up, prob. 70% of them, came from a so-called "broken" family, but we're all pretty happy as adults. Most of em were military kids; and military relationships divorce a lot (in my case my Mom didn't want to leave Alaska and her career, and my Dad wanted to go back to the farm, so they split.) Some of the folks I knew didn't have a re-marriage and were raised by a single parent (mostly moms cause that was the trend, but there were a couple being raised by their fathers) I'd almost say the ones with a single parent did better financially, but I've not really done a study or anything, just kind of off the top of my head - only like two of them are hurting financially... Like one of them is a dipshit, but it's no surprise as she was heavy into drugs well into adulthood ... can't remember her parents exactly, but I think she had a single mom parent...

So yea, idk if I'd be an exception to some norm because it was kind of common up here, but idk about the lower 48 - it's like a different country most of the time...

 

[Syriusly]

My Dad was killed for nothing in the skies over Vietnam and my mother went batshit crazy when I was 8 so I might as well not have had one

And you were the better or worse for not having either a mom or dad, do you think?

How could someone possibly know that unless they were able to travel back in time then forward in time following two different time lines?

By watching the joys and lessons & advantages of their peers who had a mom and dad, unlike them.

I hope Skull Pilot that you find healing. It's tough without the proper foundation. But even with those of us who grew up minus a mom or dad, we can fill those gaps with time and patience with our process.

I have to wonderful parents who raised me well.

My neighbor down the street had two opposite gender parents and her father secretly molested her from the time she was 5 years old.

I didn't know about the molestation until decades later- but I certainly knew her family was dysfunctional.

Would she have preferred two lesbian mothers to the family she had- absolutely. She would have preferred any family situation other than the one that included her father.

What lessons should I learn from that peer who had a mom and a dad?

 

[mdk]

Liberalism is madness, and the LGBpbWTF branch thereof doubly so.

I hope getting that off your chest helps soothe your irrelevance.

 

[bodecea]

Doesnt matter what you believe. Reality is much more credible.

And reality shows a huge section of Americans believe that both a mother and father are necessary to a child. That's what the poll says folks.

No...that is NOT what your poll said...you might want to look at your own words that you typed with your own little hands.

 

[80zephyr]

It takes a man and a woman, a father and a mother, to create a child.

That is also what it takes to comprise a functional set of parents to that child.

Um, Bob....the capacity to conceive a child isn't what makes good parents. Loving, caring for, providing for and nurturing your child is what makes good parents. All of which a same sex couple can do and an opposite sex couple can do.

Not if you believe that a child needs both genders to have a balanced upbringing.

Mark

You're free to believe that all you wish but you still can't stop gay people from raising their biological and adoptive children.

A gay couple cannot have a biological child. I don't have to "stop them". Nature does that.

Mark

 

[Asclepias]

The reason is simple: denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.

Which hurts those children and helps none.

There is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex. Marriage, by definition, always has been, and will always be, between a man and a woman.

You do not help children by offering them a fraudulent mockery, and insisting that it is the same as the genuine thing that is being mocked.

Definitions change. Matter of fact gay used to mean happy.

No, definitions do not change. Stupid people tell us they change. We now have "definitions" that tell us a man is a woman, a white is a black, and a middle aged man is really a six year old girl.

We have "transabled" people that tell us that they REALLY are disabled, and trans species people that tell us they really are a cat.

Reality tells us one thing, and delusional people tell us we are wrong.

We're not.

We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.
George Orwell

Mark

Yes definitions change all the time. There was a time when emancipation simply meant transfer of ownership. I'll let you think about that one and the implications.