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

[sealybobo]

And as adoption demonstrates, the ability to concieve a child isn't what makes you that child's parents. A lesson reaffirmed when one parent is infertile....and they have kids by other means.

Unless you're going to argue that adoptive parents aren't parents....your argument is already DOA.

Except that it doesn't. No marriage requires children or is predicated on them. And if you do have kids, there's no requirement that they be genetically related to you in order to be their parents.

Marriage is whatever say it is. As we invented it.

Marriage is what we say it is? In reality then, EVERYTHING is what we say it is. The only law against murder is because we "say" that it is illegal and the killer will be punished. Everything we do is because it is "what we say it is" All of morality, all of what is right or wrong is a human construct.

Orwell has your kind down pat.

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

George Orwell

Mark

We humans do make the rules.

Yes, we do, but not all the time. The laws of nature don't change. Would you be happy if murder or pedophilia was legalized? Do you feel it would be a help or a hindrance to the human condition.

Mark

No. So what? There have always been gays. If there's a god he made them. No reason to hide who you are. Who are you to judge? How they hurting you?

Any action in society affects all of society. Hurting me is not the question. And if God made gays, he also made murderers, thieves, and liars. Who am I to judge them?

Mark

This is stupid. If you kill or steal you hurt someone else. Gays aren't hurting anyone.

Are you a judge? We have laws against murder but no anti gay laws.

It's OK to lie. Or not against the law.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yes, people have many problems today. Back in the 1950's divorce and broken homes were much rarer, Then the "enlightened" among us took away the taboo of divorce, and made it easy to get. Shacking up became acceptable as well.

And then, when the system broke, people like you come around and tell us that "its not so great" anyways, so why don't we just let it crumble even more.

Ruining our society even more will not solve our problems. Why not try to fix it instead?

I suppose I should some time compile a consistent list of what I see as the defining clichés of wrong-wing ideology; I know I've identified, at various times, several principles (I don't know how many; I haven't counted them) that I've described by that term.

But this is one of them: That when wrong-wing policies produce disastrous results, wrong-wingers propose to remedy these results with even more extreme versions of the same bad policies that produced these results in the first place.

 

[sealybobo]

I feel so sorry for these poor children nowadays...with 2 moms or three dads ....you know

Had that been my case...I would have turned into a serial killer.....

God bless these poor people...what a life.

Yea, I saw my former boss and his husband and their son. He looked really unhappy on vacation with them somewhere in paradise. He'd be much happier back in a 3rd world orphanage where they saved him like I would a puppy. Lol

 

[sealybobo]

We humans do make the rules.

Yes, we do, but not all the time. The laws of nature don't change. Would you be happy if murder or pedophilia was legalized? Do you feel it would be a help or a hindrance to the human condition.

Mark

Im glad I don't live in a society that condolns those things but I don't like gay people having to live in the closet. They are who they are. Like Peter Griffin said I like my beer cold and my homos flaming.

Sorry, the homosexual is one of many reasons I determined Christianity is just another ancient religion written by homophobic men.

Religion has nothing to do with nature. If I start using religion, you have permission to stop me.

Mark

You don't speak for nature, Mark. Nor is marriage bound to your conceptions of nature.

Remember, you're nobody. Your subjective opinion has no relevance to anything we're discussing. Not the meaning of marriage, not the meaning of words, not the meaning of the laws.

We decide all those things. You decide none of it. Get used to the idea.

Who is this "we" you keep referring to? It wasn't to long ago that "you" are where I am, being dictated to. The only difference is, that my stance was rational. Your side will also determine that Jenner is a woman. They are already.

Sorry, just because you are now in a position of power doesn't make your assertion any more sensible

Mark

Turns out your position on this is unconstitutional. What else can we say?

 

[Skylar]

And as adoption demonstrates, the ability to concieve a child isn't what makes you that child's parents. A lesson reaffirmed when one parent is infertile....and they have kids by other means.

Unless you're going to argue that adoptive parents aren't parents....your argument is already DOA.

Except that it doesn't. No marriage requires children or is predicated on them. And if you do have kids, there's no requirement that they be genetically related to you in order to be their parents.

Marriage is whatever say it is. As we invented it.

Marriage is what we say it is? In reality then, EVERYTHING is what we say it is. The only law against murder is because we "say" that it is illegal and the killer will be punished. Everything we do is because it is "what we say it is" All of morality, all of what is right or wrong is a human construct.

Orwell has your kind down pat.

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

George Orwell

Mark

We humans do make the rules.

Yes, we do, but not all the time. The laws of nature don't change. Would you be happy if murder or pedophilia was legalized? Do you feel it would be a help or a hindrance to the human condition.

Mark

No. So what? There have always been gays. If there's a god he made them. No reason to hide who you are. Who are you to judge? How they hurting you?

Any action in society affects all of society. Hurting me is not the question. And if God made gays, he also made murderers, thieves, and liars. Who am I to judge them?

Mark

Homosexuality doesn't kill you. It doesn't murder you. Rendering your analogies more useless melodramatics.

Gays don't hurt you. They take nothing from you. 'Affecting you' isn't hurting you. Leaving Sealy's question unanswered. How are they hurting you.

And your evasion is an elegant answer; you can't articulate anyway that they are.

 

[Skylar]

Sorry, Mark. But your'e wildly irrational. As you still think that your subjective opinion defines objective reality.

Contrary to your hapless claims, definitions do change. All the time. The law changes. All the time. And your refusal to acknowledge either really has no relevance to the meaning of words or legal definitions. As subjective isn't objective.

See how that works?

You can call an elephant an ant. Make it legal and everything. And my subjective bleating will have no affect on the legal definition.

Of course, we both know it changes nothing.

Mark

The definition itself will change. That's everything.

No one in 200 years will care what you or Jesus said

Lol. I swear that when Orwell wrote 1984, he had a picture of you on his desk for inspiration.

The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.

George Orwell
Read more at: George Orwell Quotes at BrainyQuote

Or.....your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.

One of the two.

Reality is not subject to my opinion. It is what it is.

Mark

Your conception of 'reality' is nothing but subjective opinion. Opinions which are provably false......for example, that definitions do not change.

Which is obvious nonsense. Definitions change regularly, both in language, usage and the law. You deny that any of this can happen. History proves you wrong.

When you muster more than provably false fallacies and the insistence that your subjective opinion defines reality, join us.

 

[Skylar]

We humans do make the rules.

Yes, we do, but not all the time. The laws of nature don't change. Would you be happy if murder or pedophilia was legalized? Do you feel it would be a help or a hindrance to the human condition.

Mark

Im glad I don't live in a society that condolns those things but I don't like gay people having to live in the closet. They are who they are. Like Peter Griffin said I like my beer cold and my homos flaming.

Sorry, the homosexual is one of many reasons I determined Christianity is just another ancient religion written by homophobic men.

Religion has nothing to do with nature. If I start using religion, you have permission to stop me.

Mark

You don't speak for nature, Mark. Nor is marriage bound to your conceptions of nature.

Remember, you're nobody. Your subjective opinion has no relevance to anything we're discussing. Not the meaning of marriage, not the meaning of words, not the meaning of the laws.

We decide all those things. You decide none of it. Get used to the idea.

Who is this "we" you keep referring to?

All the other people that you ignore in your insistence that your subjective opinion alone defines reality. Remember, you've chosen to ignore dictionaries, insisting that you define the meaning of words. You've chosen to ignore history, insisting that definitions do not change. You've decided to ignore the law, insisting that you and you alone define marriage.

'We' would be the rest of the world that you ignore in your absurd insistence that you define reality. We're still here. And we still decide what marriage is, what definitions mean, what the law is.

You don't.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, people have many problems today. Back in the 1950's divorce and broken homes were much rarer, Then the "enlightened" among us took away the taboo of divorce, and made it easy to get. Shacking up became acceptable as well.

And then, when the system broke, people like you come around and tell us that "its not so great" anyways, so why don't we just let it crumble even more.

Ruining our society even more will not solve our problems. Why not try to fix it instead?

I suppose I should some time compile a consistent list of what I see as the defining clichés of wrong-wing ideology; I know I've identified, at various times, several principles (I don't know how many; I haven't counted them) that I've described by that term.

But this is one of them: That when wrong-wing policies produce disastrous results, wrong-wingers propose to remedy these results with even more extreme versions of the same bad policies that produced these results in the first place.

'Wrong-wing' according to who? Remember, your argument is predicated on you being the authoritative arbiter of all terms. And you're the arbiter of none.

How is same sex marriage 'extreme' or 'disastrous'? What harm does it cause you? What does it take from you?

Absolutely nothing.

 

[sealybobo]

You can call an elephant an ant. Make it legal and everything. And my subjective bleating will have no affect on the legal definition.

Of course, we both know it changes nothing.

Mark

The definition itself will change. That's everything.

No one in 200 years will care what you or Jesus said

Lol. I swear that when Orwell wrote 1984, he had a picture of you on his desk for inspiration.

The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.

George Orwell
Read more at: George Orwell Quotes at BrainyQuote

Or.....your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.

One of the two.

Reality is not subject to my opinion. It is what it is.

Mark

Your conception of 'reality' is nothing but subjective opinion. Opinions which are provably false......for example, that definitions do not change.

Which is obvious nonsense. Definitions change regularly, both in language, usage and the law. You deny that any of this can happen. History proves you wrong.

When you muster more than provably false fallacies and the insistence that your subjective opinion defines reality, join us.

A fag used to be a cigarette and being gay meant being happy.

And marriage used to be when a man and woman got hitched.

 

[JoeB131]

So Silly-wet is on his usual rant about how gays are going to make children unhappy by having them.

So by his logic, if two parents of oppossite genders are critical to good child rearing.

so we should pass a law that no one should get a divorce, no matter how bad things are, until all their kids are 18. Otherwise,we take away your kids and give them to a couple that is staying together.

If one parent dies, the remaining widow/widower is REQUIRED to get married to someone else within one year.

Of course, everyone would find these laws ridiculous intrusions into our lives. But that doesn't matter, Silly-wet heard that if you say "For the children", that trumps all other considerations, and he thinks he can win the homophobic arguments he lost if he says it.

 

[sealybobo]

So Silly-wet is on his usual rant about how gays are going to make children unhappy by having them.

So by his logic, if two parents of oppossite genders are critical to good child rearing.

so we should pass a law that no one should get a divorce, no matter how bad things are, until all their kids are 18. Otherwise,we take away your kids and give them to a couple that is staying together.

If one parent dies, the remaining widow/widower is REQUIRED to get married to someone else within one year.

Of course, everyone would find these laws ridiculous intrusions into our lives. But that doesn't matter, Silly-wet heard that if you say "For the children", that trumps all other considerations, and he thinks he can win the homophobic arguments he lost if he says it.

No. In your scenario the law should be the father participates financially even if he won't emotionally in the child's life.

A lot of single moms do fine with what they got. Especially if their spouse dies. But dont pretend its a positive thing for kids cause it aint.

And you make a good point not all fathers make good dads. Some kids are better off without their fathers. No ones going to eliminate all bad parents but we can certainly lower the numbers. Why are you pro one parent homes?

And no one wants to take your kid away. You had him now raise him. We're sick of you raising piss poor humans.

 

[Silhouette]

So Silly-wet is on his usual rant about how gays are going to make children unhappy by having them.

So by his logic, if two parents of oppossite genders are critical to good child rearing.

so we should pass a law that no one should get a divorce, no matter how bad things are, until all their kids are 18. Otherwise,we take away your kids and give them to a couple that is staying together.

If one parent dies, the remaining widow/widower is REQUIRED to get married to someone else within one year.

Of course, everyone would find these laws ridiculous intrusions into our lives. But that doesn't matter, Silly-wet heard that if you say "For the children", that trumps all other considerations, and he thinks he can win the homophobic arguments he lost if he says it.

No. In your scenario the law should be the father participates financially even if he won't emotionally in the child's life.

A lot of single moms do fine with what they got. Especially if their spouse dies. But dont pretend its a positive thing for kids cause it aint.

And you make a good point not all fathers make good dads. Some kids are better off without their fathers. No ones going to eliminate all bad parents but we can certainly lower the numbers. Why are you pro one parent homes?

And no one wants to take your kid away. You had him now raise him. We're sick of you raising piss poor humans.

The point is, marriage was invented to cure the ills of single parenthood. And precisely so that both either the actual creative parents (mom/dad) would be together, or at the very least a mother/father stand-in (adoptive man/wife, grandpa/grandma) for the sake of the childrens' future. In that Rule, all children involved have access to both their own gender as a role model and the opposite one to learn how to interact in an adult social world that contains both.

That's why the Rule was set. And that is its function. No substitutes are acceptable for the Rule.

One of the provisions of the Infant Doctrine regarding children and necessities is that a well rounded social preparation for later life is considered a necessity. Gay marriage by its very structure, destroys half of that foundation 100% of the time. That causes wounds to children and leaves them ill prepared for life. Causing wounds to children or damaging them socially is strictly forbidden in contract law when adults are implicitly involved in contracts with children. So any contract that wounds or damages children is void upon its face without legal challenge.

Any person, persons, judge, tribunal or attorneys seeking to show the world that gay marriage "doesn't harm children and in fact is good for them" has the burden upon them to FIRST demonstrate that beyond a shadow of a doubt (and, good luck with that) BEFORE any revisions to the marriage contract can happen where children are deprived of either a mother or father for life as a binding legal condition.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The point is, marriage was invented to cure the ills of single parenthood.

No, it wasn't:

History of Marriage: 13 Surprising Facts

And:

4. Babies optional

In many early cultures, men could dissolve a marriage or take another wife if a woman was infertile. However, the early Christian church was a trailblazer in arguing that marriage was not contingent on producing offspring.

"The early Christian church held the position that if you can procreate you must not refuse to procreate. But they always took the position that they would annul a marriage if a man could not have sex with his wife, but not if they could not conceive," Coontz told LiveScience.

 

[Silhouette]

The point is, marriage was invented to cure the ills of single parenthood.

No, it wasn't:

We'll let the 300 million in this country determine how children are implicit parties to the marriage contract, not just 5 People in SCOTUS, two of which displayed rampant public bias before and during the Obergefell proceedings.

We wouldn't want to derail the foundation of American Law to accommodate a cult that harms children, now would we?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The point is, marriage was invented to cure the ills of single parenthood.

No, it wasn't:

We'll let the 300 million in this country determine how children are implicit parties to the marriage contract, not just 5 People in SCOTUS...

We are not a democracy, for reasons like that.

 

[sealybobo]

So Silly-wet is on his usual rant about how gays are going to make children unhappy by having them.

So by his logic, if two parents of oppossite genders are critical to good child rearing.

so we should pass a law that no one should get a divorce, no matter how bad things are, until all their kids are 18. Otherwise,we take away your kids and give them to a couple that is staying together.

If one parent dies, the remaining widow/widower is REQUIRED to get married to someone else within one year.

Of course, everyone would find these laws ridiculous intrusions into our lives. But that doesn't matter, Silly-wet heard that if you say "For the children", that trumps all other considerations, and he thinks he can win the homophobic arguments he lost if he says it.

No. In your scenario the law should be the father participates financially even if he won't emotionally in the child's life.

A lot of single moms do fine with what they got. Especially if their spouse dies. But dont pretend its a positive thing for kids cause it aint.

And you make a good point not all fathers make good dads. Some kids are better off without their fathers. No ones going to eliminate all bad parents but we can certainly lower the numbers. Why are you pro one parent homes?

And no one wants to take your kid away. You had him now raise him. We're sick of you raising piss poor humans.

The point is, marriage was invented to cure the ills of single parenthood. And precisely so that both either the actual creative parents (mom/dad) would be together, or at the very least a mother/father stand-in (adoptive man/wife, grandpa/grandma) for the sake of the childrens' future. In that Rule, all children involved have access to both their own gender as a role model and the opposite one to learn how to interact in an adult social world that contains both.

That's why the Rule was set. And that is its function. No substitutes are acceptable for the Rule.

One of the provisions of the Infant Doctrine regarding children and necessities is that a well rounded social preparation for later life is considered a necessity. Gay marriage by its very structure, destroys half of that foundation 100% of the time. That causes wounds to children and leaves them ill prepared for life. Causing wounds to children or damaging them socially is strictly forbidden in contract law when adults are implicitly involved in contracts with children. So any contract that wounds or damages children is void upon its face without legal challenge.

Any person, persons, judge, tribunal or attorneys seeking to show the world that gay marriage "doesn't harm children and in fact is good for them" has the burden upon them to FIRST demonstrate that beyond a shadow of a doubt (and, good luck with that) BEFORE any revisions to the marriage contract can happen where children are deprived of either a mother or father for life as a binding legal condition.

We only give gay parents kids when they don't have straight parents who want them.

P.S. Lots of other reasons we encourage marriage. I'll give you one small example. We let 2 old people get married and get the tax benefits of marriage. Why do we do that? Because it is cheaper and greener for them to be living in one home rather than 2. That saves on electricity and heat. Cheaper to light up one room and heat one room for 2 people than it is to heat up and light up 2 homes for the same two people.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Again- you citing you- and you ignore both the law and dictionaries.

 

[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 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.

Oh, I believe you. But this 80zephyr guy? He says you're a fucking liar:

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.

Post 273
Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

And your position is demonstrably false. As the dictionary demonstrates, definitions change all the time. With the law demonstrating the same process over time.

I have laid out why reality trumps both definition and law.

Nonsense. You offered a predictable Begging the Question fallacy offering us your subjective opinion and demanding it was 'reality'. Apparently because you say so.

Sorry, Zephy.....but your argument breaks in the same place as Bob's does. Your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality. Its just your opinion. An opinion contradicted by both the dictionary and the law.

In any contest on the meaning of words between you and the dictionary, the dictionary wins. In any contest on legal definitions between you and the law, the law wins. As linguistically and legally, you're nobody.

See how that works?

My, my, you seem upset. Like I said before, the law or the dictionary do not define reality. I can legally change the name of a rose to broccoli, but it will always and forever be a rose.

See how that works?

Mark

Right- Mark defines reality- and ignores the law and the dictionary.

If Mark decides that a rose is really broccoli- then Mark expects that we are obligated to believe that too.

 

[Syriusly]

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

So an exception can only be made for different sex spouses because why?

The concept of equal protection under the law is that LIKE situations are examined and applied. So here is your chance, please provide the legal justification for why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in different sex relationships should be allowed to civilly marry and yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in same sex relationships should not be allowed to civilly marry.

Remember, you have to apply reasoning consistently, an exception applied to one situation would have to be available to the other situation.



>>>>

Very easy. All people WERE treated equally. Any man could marry any woman. Every person in America was treated exactly the same.

Mark

Exactly what the State of Virginia argued when it argued for its ban on mixed race marriages. Any black man could marry any black woman. Any white man could marry any white woman. Every person in America was treated exactly the same.

That argument failed for the same reason your argument failed.

 

[Syriusly]

The concept of equal protection under the law is that LIKE situations are examined and applied. So here is your chance, please provide the legal justification for why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in different sex relationships should be allowed to civilly marry and yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in same sex relationships should not be allowed to civilly marry.

Remember, you have to apply reasoning consistently, an exception applied to one situation would have to be available to the other situation.

A same-sex homosexual couple is not the same thing as a heterosexual coupling between a man and a woman.

A couple is not the same thing as a coupling.

However, now in America a couple- regardless of their gender- is treated legally the same when it comes to marriage.

And that is a wonderful change.