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

[Syriusly]

I have never denied that people can change a definition. I do deny that they can change reality. Society now tells us that Jenner is a woman. Hell, they could even pass a law stating that "fact".

Will it change reality? No.

So, you can say gays are married, if it makes you feel better. Reality says something different.

Mark

Of course, you're arguing with someone who probably thinks that Bruce Jenner is a woman. Someone who is fawning all over the spectacular new outfit that the Emperor is wearing, and who will call you and I unpardonably stupid or unfit for our posts, for correctly observing that His Majesty is stark naked. May Laurence Tureaud have compassion on him.

I am arguing with delusional people who deny the reality of marraige.

 

[Syriusly]

Mark.....you're stuck. As your only argument is to insist that marriage is whatever *you* say it is. And you're nobody. Your argument breaks at the same place it does with Bobs: your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.

You're doing the same thing.

The only difference is that the position that 80zephyr and I take is backed up by hard science, biology, and thousands of years of human history, while your position is backed up by nothing but a passing fad of extreme wrong-wing sexual perversion.

Oh please tell us the 'hard science' that marriage is defined by?

Please do.

 

[Inevitable]

So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life. And how important people feel about that for children.

It's important.

 

[80zephyr]

and that marriage cannot happen in a gay marriage.k

Yet the actual reality- the real reality- not what voices in your head say- say you are delusional.

Per both the Webster and Oxford English Dictionary- marriage includes same gender couples.

And thousands of same gender couples are being married legally married all around the United States.

You are as deluded as the person who claims that a mixed race couple is not really married.

I have never denied that people can change a definition. I do deny that they can change reality.

Marriage is whatever we say marriage is.

That is the reality.

In the United States, any couple issued a marriage license is in reality- married.

Those who claim otherwise are denying reality.

Yes, yes, everything is what we say it is. Black can be white, man can be woman. If you have children, I hope that you live to see the world you are leaving them.

The book "1984" is coming true. Orwell was just a little to early with the date.

When a society gets used to denying reality, it becomes so much easier for the next denial.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

George Orwell

Mark

Mark.....you're stuck. As your only argument is to insist that marriage is whatever *you* say it is. And you're nobody. Your argument breaks at the same place it does with Bobs: your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.

You can't get around that.

So why would a rational person ignore the law and the dictionary and instead believe you.....citing yourself?

For the same reason that a rational person would know that a man is not a woman, or a white person is not black.

Reality doesn't listen to the laws of man, or our definitions.

Mark

 

[Bob Blaylock]

For the same reason that a rational person would know that a man is not a woman, or a white person is not black.

Reality doesn't listen to the laws of man, or our definitions.

I'm now thinking of Rachel Dolezal, a woman who claimed to be black, but turns out to be white.

Correctly, even liberals rejected her claim; and she's been recognized and treated as a fraud. Of course, this happened around the same time that Bruce Jenner was “coming out as a woman””. It all goes to show just how insane and irrational and inconsistent modern wrong-wing ideology has become.

There is much less difference between Ms. Dolezal and a black woman, than there is between Mr, Jenner and a woman. Both claims are insane, of course, but Ms. Dolezal's claim is substantially less insane than Mr. Jenner's, and there is certainly no rational reason to reject Ms. Dolezal's claim to be black while accepting Mr. Jenner's claim to be female.

And of course, the idea that there can be any such thing as “marriage” between two people of the same sex, or that two people of the same sex can constitute a valid set of parents for a child, is at the same level of madness as the claims that Mr, Jenner is a woman or that Ms. Dolezal is black.

 

[80zephyr]

For the same reason that a rational person would know that a man is not a woman, or a white person is not black.

Reality doesn't listen to the laws of man, or our definitions.

I'm now thinking of Rachel Dolezal, a woman who claimed to be black, but turns out to be white.

Correctly, even liberals rejected her claim; and she's been recognized and treated as a fraud. Of course, this happened around the same time that Bruce Jenner was “coming out as a woman””. It all goes to show just how insane and irrational and inconsistent modern wrong-wing ideology has become.

There is much less difference between Ms. Dolezal and a black woman, than there is between Mr, Jenner and a woman. Both claims are insane, of course, but Ms. Dolezal's claim is substantially less insane than Mr. Jenner's, and there is certainly no rational reason to reject Ms. Dolezal's claim to be black while accepting Mr. Jenner's claim to be female.

And of course, the idea that there can be any such thing as “marriage” between two people of the same sex, or that two people of the same sex can constitute a valid set of parents for a child, is at the same level of madness as the claims that Mr, Jenner is a woman or that Ms. Dolezal is black.

You are correct, of course. Children are created by the mating of a man and a woman. Marriage is an acknowledgment of that coupling. Calling anything else "marriage" is like claiming Jenner actually is a woman.

Rational people understand reality.

Mark

 

[WorldWatcher]

Children are created by the mating of a man and a woman. Marriage is an acknowledgment of that coupling.

And yet there are laws in this country that require that when certain men and women marry they must not be able to create children from that coupling.

Double standard much?


>>>>

 

[Debra K]

What exactly makes this a current event?

Because the question of removing children from the hope of either a mother or father for life as a matter of contract is a current event.

There is no contract, Sil.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no contract, Sil.

No marriage contract eh? No terms between the spouses at all? Then why are they required to apply for a license with numerous questions? You do understand what an implied contract is, yes? This one's for life, one of its most fatal terms when the question of denying the implicit partners to the contract (children) either a mother or father for its expressed duration.

Understand that American law considers implicit contracts as valid and binding as written ones...

 

[Skylar]

Yet the actual reality- the real reality- not what voices in your head say- say you are delusional.

Per both the Webster and Oxford English Dictionary- marriage includes same gender couples.

And thousands of same gender couples are being married legally married all around the United States.

You are as deluded as the person who claims that a mixed race couple is not really married.

I have never denied that people can change a definition. I do deny that they can change reality.

Marriage is whatever we say marriage is.

That is the reality.

In the United States, any couple issued a marriage license is in reality- married.

Those who claim otherwise are denying reality.

Yes, yes, everything is what we say it is. Black can be white, man can be woman. If you have children, I hope that you live to see the world you are leaving them.

The book "1984" is coming true. Orwell was just a little to early with the date.

When a society gets used to denying reality, it becomes so much easier for the next denial.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

George Orwell

Mark

Mark.....you're stuck. As your only argument is to insist that marriage is whatever *you* say it is. And you're nobody. Your argument breaks at the same place it does with Bobs: your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.

You can't get around that.

So why would a rational person ignore the law and the dictionary and instead believe you.....citing yourself?

For the same reason that a rational person would know that a man is not a woman, or a white person is not black.

And what reason would that be? Remember, contrary to your batshit claim, definitions do change. And have.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries

You insist this does not happen, can not happen. History, reality, and the dictionary demonstrate that you're wrong. And the dictionary is quite simply a better source on the meaning of words than you are. When it comes to legal terms, the law is a better source on legal definitions than you are.

You disagree. Um, so what? Linguistically, practically and legally.....you're nobody. Nor does your personal opinion have the slightest relevance to anyone else's marriage.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Skylar]

There is no contract, Sil.

No marriage contract eh? No terms between the spouses at all? Then why are they required to apply for a license with numerous questions? You do understand what an implied contract is, yes? This one's for life, one of its most fatal terms when the question of denying the implicit partners to the contract (children) either a mother or father for its expressed duration.

Show us any law or court that recognizes that a marriage of parents creates a minor contract for children.

You can't. You made that up. And your imagination isn't contract law, Sil. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Understand that American law considers implicit contracts as valid and binding as written ones...

Which might have some relevance if you were citing American law. Alas, you're citing your imagination and calling it American law. As US law simply doens't say what you do. And you know it.

Which is why when we ask you to quote US law backing any of your claims regarding children and marriage.........you try and change the subject.

 

[Skylar]

What exactly makes this a current event?

Because the question of removing children from the hope of either a mother or father for life as a matter of contract is a current event.

There is no contract, Sil.

Ask Sil to show us the law recognizing that a marriage of parents is a minor contract for children.

She knows the law says no such thing. We know the law says no such thing. And she knows we know the law says no such thing.

Which is why she avoids the topic like it were on fire.

 

[Debra K]

There is no contract, Sil.

No marriage contract eh? No terms between the spouses at all? Then why are they required to apply for a license with numerous questions? You do understand what an implied contract is, yes? This one's for life, one of its most fatal terms when the question of denying the implicit partners to the contract (children) either a mother or father for its expressed duration.

Understand that American law considers implicit contracts as valid and binding as written ones...

A contract is an agreement to do or not to do a certain thing. Consent of the parties is essential to form a valid contract.

A marriage is a personal relationship between two consenting adults arising out of a civil contract wherein the parties consent to mutual obligations of respect, fidelity, and support. Children, whether born or unborn, are not parties to the marriage (a personal relationship) nor the civil contract between the consenting marriage partners.

A marriage may only be entered or dissolved as provided by law. Thus, if state law requires the parties to obtain a marriage license, then no marriage may be entered without the required marriage license. That legal requirement is necessary for state recognition of the marriage. A person does not need a marriage license to procreate. Again, a child is not a party to any contract.

A contract may be expressed or implied. An implied contract may be implied in fact or implied at law. A contract implied in fact is one based on the conduct of the parties. A contract implied at law is based on the equitable theory of unjust enrichment.

I know what an implied contract is; you don't. You seem to think that a child is a party to his gay parents' marriage contract, with one of the allegedly implied terms thereof is that his parents should never have entered the marriage contract in the first place because the existence of that marriage contract somehow deprives the child of some amorphous "hope" that you believe to be essential to a child's welfare. Your contract argument is wholly frivolous. It doesn't have any basis in law or fact. You're motivated only by your irrational animus against homosexuals, and sadly you make that the entire focus of your existence.

 

[Skylar]

There is no contract, Sil.

No marriage contract eh? No terms between the spouses at all? Then why are they required to apply for a license with numerous questions? You do understand what an implied contract is, yes? This one's for life, one of its most fatal terms when the question of denying the implicit partners to the contract (children) either a mother or father for its expressed duration.

Understand that American law considers implicit contracts as valid and binding as written ones...

A contract is an agreement to do or not to do a certain thing. Consent of the parties is essential to form a valid contract.

A marriage is a personal relationship between two consenting adults arising out of a civil contract wherein the parties consent to mutual obligations of respect, fidelity, and support. Children, whether born or unborn, are not parties to the marriage (a personal relationship) nor the civil contract between the consenting marriage partners.

A marriage may only be entered or dissolved as provided by law. Thus, if state law requires the parties to obtain a marriage license, then no marriage may be entered without the required marriage license. That legal requirement is necessary for state recognition of the marriage. A person does not need a marriage license to procreate. Again, a child is not a party to any contract.

A contract may be expressed or implied. An implied contract may be implied in fact or implied at law. A contract implied in fact is one based on the conduct of the parties. A contract implied at law is based on the equitable theory of unjust enrichment.

I know what an implied contract is; you don't. You seem to think that a child is a party to his gay parents' marriage contract, with one of the allegedly implied terms thereof is that his parents should never have entered the marriage contract in the first place because the existence of that marriage contract somehow deprives the child of some amorphous "hope" that you believe to be essential to a child's welfare. Your contract argument is wholly frivolous. It doesn't have any basis in law or fact. You're motivated only by your irrational animus against homosexuals, and sadly you make that the entire focus of your existence.

All true. And as if the poor dead horse of Sil's pseudo-legal argument hadn't been kicked enough.....the Supreme Court utterly obliterates even the concept:

"This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

Affirming that the right to marriage isn't dependent on children or the ability to have them.

All of which Sil already knows. But really hopes you don't.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Where's the, Wish I'd missed out on this hell on earth option?

Then off yourself and put us out of your misery.

 

[80zephyr]

Children are created by the mating of a man and a woman. Marriage is an acknowledgment of that coupling.

And yet there are laws in this country that require that when certain men and women marry they must not be able to create children from that coupling.

Double standard much?


>>>>

Thats the problem with questions like this. People try to use exceptions to make the rule. Using exceptions, anything is possible.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

I have never denied that people can change a definition. I do deny that they can change reality.

Marriage is whatever we say marriage is.

That is the reality.

In the United States, any couple issued a marriage license is in reality- married.

Those who claim otherwise are denying reality.

Yes, yes, everything is what we say it is. Black can be white, man can be woman. If you have children, I hope that you live to see the world you are leaving them.

The book "1984" is coming true. Orwell was just a little to early with the date.

When a society gets used to denying reality, it becomes so much easier for the next denial.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

George Orwell

Mark

Mark.....you're stuck. As your only argument is to insist that marriage is whatever *you* say it is. And you're nobody. Your argument breaks at the same place it does with Bobs: your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.

You can't get around that.

So why would a rational person ignore the law and the dictionary and instead believe you.....citing yourself?

For the same reason that a rational person would know that a man is not a woman, or a white person is not black.

And what reason would that be? Remember, contrary to your batshit claim, definitions do change. And have.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries

You insist this does not happen, can not happen. History, reality, and the dictionary demonstrate that you're wrong. And the dictionary is quite simply a better source on the meaning of words than you are. When it comes to legal terms, the law is a better source on legal definitions than you are.

You disagree. Um, so what? Linguistically, practically and legally.....you're nobody. Nor does your personal opinion have the slightest relevance to anyone else's marriage.

Get used to the idea.

You are holding me to a position I did not take. I have laid out why reality trumps both definition and law.

I never said that society or government is reasonable or logical.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

What exactly makes this a current event?

Because the question of removing children from the hope of either a mother or father for life as a matter of contract is a current event.

There is no contract, Sil.

Ask Sil to show us the law recognizing that a marriage of parents is a minor contract for children.

She knows the law says no such thing. We know the law says no such thing. And she knows we know the law says no such thing.

Which is why she avoids the topic like it were on fire.

So, if you which to neglect the child, you aren't going to be arrested?

Mark

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And what reason would that be? Remember, contrary to your batshit claim, definitions do change. And have.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries

You insist this does not happen, can not happen. History, reality, and the dictionary demonstrate that you're wrong. And the dictionary is quite simply a better source on the meaning of words than you are. When it comes to legal terms, the law is a better source on legal definitions than you are.

You disagree. Um, so what? Linguistically, practically and legally.....you're nobody. Nor does your personal opinion have the slightest relevance to anyone else's marriage.

Get used to the idea.

Changing the language does not change the underlying reality.

We could redefine the language so that the word “elephant” includes this creature…

…but that cannot change the underlying unalterable truth that the creature pictured above is a completely different creature from this one…

Of course, your argument about changing language and definitions is really a defense of the concept that George Orwell defined and describes as “Newspeak”, which was the idea of corrupting language in order to control thought. The idea is that if language is altered to make it difficult to express a certain belief, then it will become difficult even to form or hold that belief; conversely, if language is altered to make it easier to express a belief, then it will be easier to hold that belief. That is exactly what you and those on your side are trying to do with “marriage”. You cannot change what marriage actually is, but if you can make it difficult to express the distinction between genuine marriage and the immoral mockery of marriage that you are promoting, then you hope to make it difficult even to grasp the distinction.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

A marriage is a personal relationship between two consenting adults arising out of a civil contract wherein the parties consent to mutual obligations of respect, fidelity, and support. Children, whether born or unborn, are not parties to the marriage (a personal relationship) nor the civil contract between the consenting marriage partners.

Children have no opportunity to have a direct voice in the marriage or other circumstances in which they are born, but they are most certainly affected by it, in a profound way. It is wrong—almost to the point of sociopathy—not to take their interests into account in a matter that has such a direct and serious effect on them.