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

[Syriusly]

And again- legally you are wrong.

Mary and Jane have a marriage license- and all of the legal protections that go with that- and the protections for their children- Lori and Molly don't.

Tell us how children are harmed by having the legal protections of marriage?

You're asking a question based on a false premise.

The “marriage” is nothing more than a mockery

No- however much you disagree with it- Mary and Jane are legally as married as my wife and I are- and have the exact same legal protections as my wife and I have- and any children that they have have the same legal protections marriage provides children- as my child has.

So- why exactly do you want to deny legal protections to those children- knowing that this will cause those children actual legal harm?

 

[Silhouette]

And again- legally you are wrong.

Mary and Jane have a marriage license- and all of the legal protections that go with that- and the protections for their children- Lori and Molly don't.

Tell us how children are harmed by having the legal protections of marriage?

You're asking a question based on a false premise.

The “marriage” is nothing more than a mockery

No- however much you disagree with it- Mary and Jane are legally as married as my wife and I are- and have the exact same legal protections as my wife and I have- and any children that they have have the same legal protections marriage provides children- as my child has.

So- why exactly do you want to deny legal protections to those children- knowing that this will cause those children actual legal harm?

Your protections and perceived "rights" don't amount to squat legally if they deprive children of a father as a contractual guarantee for life. Children are dominant litigants where contracts are concerned. If a contract like yours "lesbian marriage" deprives a child of a marital necessity (marriage was created to cure the many ills of children not having a father or mother) then your contract is VOID. It isn't merely voidable, it is already void.

Read the Infant Doctrine and necessities in contracts when you get a minute. Or, New York vs Ferber USSC 1982.. Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.

 

[Syriusly]

And again- legally you are wrong.

Mary and Jane have a marriage license- and all of the legal protections that go with that- and the protections for their children- Lori and Molly don't.

Tell us how children are harmed by having the legal protections of marriage?

You're asking a question based on a false premise.

The “marriage” is nothing more than a mockery

No- however much you disagree with it- Mary and Jane are legally as married as my wife and I are- and have the exact same legal protections as my wife and I have- and any children that they have have the same legal protections marriage provides children- as my child has.

So- why exactly do you want to deny legal protections to those children- knowing that this will cause those children actual legal harm?

Your protections and perceived "rights" don't amount to squat legally if they deprive children of a father .

Children are deprived of their father regularly- by divorce, by abandonment, by the criminal justice system.

Meanwhile- why exactly do you want harm the children of gay couples by preventing them from having married parents?

 

[Silhouette]

Children are deprived of their father regularly- by divorce, by abandonment, by the criminal justice system.

Not by a binding legal contract they aren't. Gay marriage is the only set of conditions where the lack of a father (or mother) is imposed upon children by legal bind for their entire life. Very different set of laws. Might want to check into them when you get a minute. See the link in my last post...

 

[Syriusly]

Children are deprived of their father regularly- by divorce, by abandonment, by the criminal justice system.

. Gay marriage is the only set of conditions where the lack of a father (or mother) is imposed upon children by legal bind for their entire life. ..

Sigh- god you lie so much.

Most gay marriage involves no children.
Marriage of gay parents provides those children with legal protection and prevents those children from being harmed.
And marriage is hardly 'for their entire life' as the children of divorced parents can tell you.

Why again- do you want to harm the children of gay parents?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Children are deprived of their father regularly- by divorce, by abandonment, by the criminal justice system.

That children are deprived of fathers or mothers as a result of circumstances that are unfortunate and unavoidable is not, in any way, an excuse for intentionally setting children up avoidably to be so deprived.

You might as well argue that there's nothing wrong with murder, since people will die anyway from other causes.

Meanwhile- why exactly do you want harm the children of gay couples by preventing them from having married parents?

Putting them in a situation where what they have is a set of homosexual perverts for “parents”, instead of a mother and a father, is what harms them. Creating a fraud that declares these “parents” to be “married” does nothing to mitigate this harm.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Sigh- god you lie so much.[/indent]·
·
·[/indent]Why again- do you want to harm the children of gay parents?

You're the one who defends even putting children into that unhealthy and perverse situation in the first place; putting the lie to any claimed concern on your part for the well-being of those children.

 

[Silhouette]

Sigh- god you lie so much.

Most gay marriage involves no children.
Marriage of gay parents provides those children with legal protection and prevents those children from being harmed.

We don't tailor rules of law to make some children feel comfortable. We tailor the rule of law to make ALL children safe from harm. Just because you believe your depriving your kids of a father is "good for them" (or, not being allowed to play house with your lesbian buddy could "harm" the kids you've involved..), does not mean your armchair assessment of "that which harms children" can or will be applied in a general scope as the rule of law concerning ALL marriage contracts as they affect ALL children over time. That's how we set permanent laws: taking into account the scope of time and the greater good to the most amount of people...not your poor unfortunate exceptions....which..by your machinations "keeping them from harm"...actually winds up in their harm and the harm of many many more children to come who can now legally be swept away from either a mother or father for life as a new term of a binding contract.

Which is void upon its face therefore...

 

[Syriusly]

Sigh- god you lie so much.

Most gay marriage involves no children.
Marriage of gay parents provides those children with legal protection and prevents those children from being harmed.

We don't tailor rules of law to make some children feel comfortable. We tailor the rule of law to make ALL children safe from harm. ..

But you want to tailor the harm to specifically harm the children of gay parents- while not making any children safe from harm at all.

Remember- preventing gay parents from marrying does not provide them with a father or a mother- it only ensures that they don't have married parents.

So again- why exactly do you want to harm the children of gay parents?

 

[Syriusly]

Sigh- god you lie so much.[/indent]·
·
·[/indent]Why again- do you want to harm the children of gay parents?

You're the one who defends even putting children into that unhealthy and perverse situation in the first place;.

When have I ever done any such thing- why exactly do you feel a need to lie about me?

There are children being raised by their gay parents all over the United States right now- preventing those children from having married parents does not help a single child- but it does harm those children specifically.

So why exactly are your morals so unhealthy and perverse that you would want harm to come to those children?

 

[Syriusly]

Children are deprived of their father regularly- by divorce, by abandonment, by the criminal justice system.

You might as well argue that there's nothing wrong with murder, since people will die anyway from other causes.
\.

So now you equate two parents trying their best to raise their children with murder.

Wow- you bigots sure steep low.

 

[mdk]

Your protections and perceived "rights" don't amount to squat legally if they deprive children of a father as a contractual guarantee for life. Children are dominant litigants where contracts are concerned. If a contract like yours "lesbian marriage" deprives a child of a marital necessity (marriage was created to cure the many ills of children not having a father or mother) then your contract is VOID. It isn't merely voidable, it is already void.

Read the Infant Doctrine and necessities in contracts when you get a minute. Or, New York vs Ferber USSC 1982.. Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.

Perhaps if you click your heels together 3 times your fantasy findings in Ferber will be true.

 

[Skylar]

Actually madness is denying reality.

Which is what you are doing.

Reality is that same gender couples are legally marrying.

The most respected dictionaries in the English language say that they are married.

Who doesn't? an anonymous nobody on the internet- you.

The reality is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The reality is that's your opinion. And your argument is insisting that your subjective opinion is objective reality.

And subjective still isn't objective.

 

[Skylar]

Your protections and perceived "rights" don't amount to squat legally if they deprive children of a father as a contractual guarantee for life. Children are dominant litigants where contracts are concerned. If a contract like yours "lesbian marriage" deprives a child of a marital necessity (marriage was created to cure the many ills of children not having a father or mother) then your contract is VOID. It isn't merely voidable, it is already void.

Read the Infant Doctrine and necessities in contracts when you get a minute. Or, New York vs Ferber USSC 1982.. Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.

Save that you're not citing the law. You're citing yourself. Ferber never finds that same sex marriage hurts kids.

That's just you citing you.

No court nor law recognizes the marriage of parents as a minor contract for children. Or that children are married to their parents.

That's just you citing you.

With the Supreme Court explicitly contradicting your claims, finding instead that same sex marriage benefits children. So you ignore the Supreme Court.

Ignoring the Supreme Court and citing yourself instead isn't a legal argument. You can't get around that.

 

[Skylar]

Children are deprived of their father regularly- by divorce, by abandonment, by the criminal justice system.

Not by a binding legal contract they aren't. Gay marriage is the only set of conditions where the lack of a father (or mother) is imposed upon children by legal bind for their entire life. Very different set of laws. Might want to check into them when you get a minute. See the link in my last post...

No, that's same sex parenting. Not same sex marriage. That's where your argument breaks, even by your pseudo-legal standards. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't remedy any of the 'problems' you've cited. It merely guarantees that children never have married parents. Which hurts their children and help none.

Hurting children isn't benefiting them. And hurting children is all your proposal has ever done.

And of course, outside the wasteland of your pseudo-legal gibberish, the Supreme Court has already found that the right to marry has nothing to do with children. You disagree with the Supreme Court and so choose to ignore them.

Um.....so? What does your willful ignorance have to do with anyone's marriage?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There are children being raised by their gay parents all over the United States right now- preventing those children from having married parents does not help a single child- but it does harm those children specifically.

So why exactly are your morals so unhealthy and perverse that you would want harm to come to those children?

Putting children the situation of having “gay parents” inherently prevents them from having married parents. Only a man and a woman can be married; not two men, and not two women.

Your accusation that it is my side that is preventing these children from having married parents is absurd; and ignores the reality of what marriage is and why it is important.

 

[mdk]

Only a man and a woman can be married; not two men, and not two women.

You are free to believe that all you wish but your beliefs do not have any bearing on the law.

 

[Skylar]

There are children being raised by their gay parents all over the United States right now- preventing those children from having married parents does not help a single child- but it does harm those children specifically.

So why exactly are your morals so unhealthy and perverse that you would want harm to come to those children?

Putting children the situation of having “gay parents” inherently prevents them from having married parents.

Then you're railing against gay parenting. Not gay marriage.

When gay and lesbian couples have kids.....what are you proposing we do? Take their kids away?

Only a man and a woman can be married; not two men, and not two women.

Except, of course, that two men can get married. As can two women. You can tell....but all the gay and lesbian couples getting married in every state.

Remember, you insisting that your subjective opinion is objective reality doesn't actually change objective reality. Gays and lesbians still get married no matter what you believe.

You're gloriously irrelevant to this entire process.

 

[Syriusly]

There are children being raised by their gay parents all over the United States right now- preventing those children from having married parents does not help a single child- but it does harm those children specifically.

So why exactly are your morals so unhealthy and perverse that you would want harm to come to those children?

Putting children the situation of having “gay parents” inherently prevents them from having married parents. .

Well lets consider the 'alternatives' here:

• Jill and Judy have two children by artificial insemination- you want to prevent their children from having married parents- do you also want the state to take those children away? Or perhaps you want the state to mandate sterilization of homosexuals, and mandatory abortions of lesbians who do get pregnant?
• Bob and Bill adopt 3 handicapped children who were abandoned by their biological parents, and that have been languishing in group homes for 5 years- do you a) deny those children a home? b) take those children away from the only parents who have ever wanted to raise them?

By the way- both scenarios are actual real scenarios.

 

[xband]

Mom and Pop were independent voters they told me when I was a young brat so I said I was independent. I found a job at a stinking hog farm when 15 to buy my own things and when I turned 18 went out on my own. I have been a staunch republican since Jimmy Carter who I voted for because he said he was a farmer. I found out later that he was not a peanut farmer but a peanut buyer so Jimmy lied to me.