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

[Syriusly]

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.

You ask the easiest questions to answer.

The rule is hetero because marriage isn't about adults. It's about the children that states expect to arrive when two adults of opposite genders unite, regardless of their fertility or age. It is because beyond reproduction, children need the stable matrix wherein they get both a mother and father united for their benefit for life. That's why the rule exists and that is the description for the reason it exists.

So if there's a sterile hetero couple, the state expects they will adopt some day...not that they will, but exceptions don't run the rule as Mark just told you. The important issue with adoptive parents or grandparents (elderly marrieds) is that there is a man functioning as a father and a woman functioning as a mother...which...as you know..."father" and "mother" don't end at conception. It's a lifelong commitment to new beings who need guidance in the world specific to their gender and a reflection of how to deal with the opposite gender.

There is nothing "like" a father. A lesbian for sure is not "like" a father. There is nothing "like" a mother. A gay man can never be a mother.

Gays can have whatever contractual situation they want with each other. They just can't call it "marriage". Because marriage involves children and children's stake in what we call "marriage" is a mother and father for life. If gays have children with opposite gendered people, then they're not really gay are they if they've welcomed the opposite gender with which to procreate (lesbians who spend the night with a man or "turkey baster" a man's semen into themselves.) What will they tell their son? "Your dad was a turkey baster, so just live with it". The boy walks away thinking "great, my only value as a man is to be a handful of paste that lesbians use to get children..

Great lesson for kids and their self-worth..

Two dads are better than 1 mom. Do you realize the number one reason we have so much crime and poverty in this country is because too many men aren't fathering their kids????

We have no problems coming from gay parents who take an active role in their children's lives. Did you have 2 parents in your home?

Two dads are better than one mom? Well then, wouldn't 3 dads be better? How about 4?

People continue to ask the wrong questions.

Mark

Like you? You just did what you accused others of doing. You are asking the wrong question.

A. Why are there babies or kids sitting waiting to be adopted?
B. Would you rather they stay in foster homes than live with two loving gay dudes?
C. Where is crime and poverty coming from? Is it coming from young men and women who were raised by gays or single moms and no dad?

Heteros have their own problems to solve and they are bigger than this. But it's easier to stay in denial about yourselves and instead blame liberals blacks Muslims or gays

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?

Mark

And how are you trying to fix it- by preventing couples from marrying- and wanting to prevent kids from being adopted?

 

[Syriusly]

Again, marriage doesn't define the gender of one's parents.

It doesn't have to. Biology does that. It takes both a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child.

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.

Marriage reflects this immutable biological fact, and the needs of society and of children with regard to the responsibility of fathers and mothers for their children and to each other.

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.

Marriage is what we say it is.

In some countries, marriage includes polygamous marriages, where one man is married to many women. In our own country, that existed for a brief time within the Mormon communities of Utah- they said that marriage was one man and many women.

In some societies in the Himalayas, marriage has included 1 woman and several men.

In human history, marriage has included many 'conditions' that we don't consider acceptable now

• Child marriage
• Ban's on inter-religious marriage
• Ban's on inter-racial marriage
• Women as chattel- wives essentially became the property of her husband

You insist that 'marriage' only exists as your definition- but reality shows that your 'reality' is just your prejudiced opinion.

 

[Syriusly]

Again, marriage doesn't define the gender of one's parents.

It doesn't have to. Biology does that. It takes both a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child.

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.

Marriage reflects this immutable biological fact, and the needs of society and of children with regard to the responsibility of fathers and mothers for their children and to each other.

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

There is no 'law of nature' that prevents murder or pedophilia- these are the rules of men.

If you can't tell the difference between the consensual marriage between two adults- and child rape- that is a serious problem you have.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

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.

Hmmm the Conservative war on drugs and Prohibition come immediately to mind.

 

[Syriusly]

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

We didn't wait for the population of the United States to decide on bans on mixed race marriages and we didn't wait for the population of the United States to decide on the bans on same gender marriage.

That is why we have a Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

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

No, it wasn't:

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

Wait- have you switched subjects to the Catholic Church now?

 

[mdk]

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?

A bias that exists only in the minds of a few anti-gay loons. Children are not an implicit part of the marriage contract in any state. Not even the reddest of red state. Perhaps in Imaginationland they do but here in the United States...not so much.

Your poor walls must be covered in thrown shit. lol

 

[Silhouette]

Children are not an implicit part of the marriage contract in any state. Not even the reddest of red state.

Have fun arguing that one in court. Because you will be...

And the poll at the top of this page will be all the evidence any appellate court will need on the "evolving attitudes about motherless or fatherless marriage". No more bullshit fabricated polls to convince them that "the public is coming around to this". 90% opposed is tough to beat. And the reams of psychological data about the damage done to fatherless sons is going to screw you.

 

[Debra K]

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.

Perhaps another poster pointed this out, but it is worth repeating. Our courts did take the interests of children into account, see, e.g.:

Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

 

[Silhouette]

No, the did not.

 

[Silhouette]

Our courts did take the interests of children into account, see, e.g.:

Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

False. They did not. They only took into account what they wanted to and never did discuss any harm caused to a child by depriving them of either a father or mother for life. They barely glanced at what a completely new structure of marriage would do to children; only as a cursory gesture to "cover their tracks" lest they look exactly like they were: pandering to a gay cult....the children be damned...

Point me to language in argument transcripts or the Opinion which weighed a fatherless son or a motherless daughter and justified it to facilitate gay marriage.

You can't. And that's a fact. Children (as a whole, who are all bound to the new law over time) were not represented at Obergefell as to their unique share of the marriage contract. And that is a mistrial. And, from the polling results it is clear here that an overwhelming majority of the American public agree with me on this fact.

 

[mdk]

Children are not an implicit part of the marriage contract in any state. Not even the reddest of red state.

Have fun arguing that one in court. Because you will be...

With your record of near perfect failure, you'll have to excuse me if I don't take any of your legal predictions seriously.

You can pretend children are an implicit part of a marriage contract until the cows come homes. As always, nobody is bound by what nonsense you invent today to harm gay people and their families. No one.

I'll ask again. What is your end game, Sil? Denying gays marriage doesn't stop them from raising children. Your solution solves nothing. You are too frightened to just come out and say that you want the government to remove children from the homes of gay people. Every time I ask you to elaborate you change the subject or flee the thread.

 

[sealybobo]

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

Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws, as well as society in general. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or considered to be compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity. When defined broadly, marriage is considered a cultural universal.

Individuals may marry for several reasons, including legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious purposes. Whom they marry may be influenced by socially determined rules of incest, prescriptive marriage rules, parental choice and individual desire. In some areas of the world, arranged marriage, child marriage, polygamy, and sometimes forced marriage, may be practiced as a cultural tradition. Conversely, such practices may be outlawed and penalized in parts of the world out of concerns for women's rights and because of international law. In developed parts of the world, there has been a general trend towards ensuring equal rightswithin marriage for women and legally recognizing the marriages of interfaith or interracial, and same-sex couples. These trends coincide with the broader human rights movement.

Marriage can be recognized by a state, an organization, a religious authority, a tribal group, a local community or peers.

 

[Skylar]

Children are not an implicit part of the marriage contract in any state. Not even the reddest of red state.

Have fun arguing that one in court. Because you will be...

The Supreme Court already made the argument for us;

"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."

But good luck insisting that the Supreme Court ignore the Supreme Court.....just because you have.

And the poll at the top of this page will be all the evidence any appellate court will need on the "evolving attitudes about motherless or fatherless marriage". No more bullshit fabricated polls to convince them that "the public is coming around to this". 90% opposed is tough to beat. And the reams of psychological data about the damage done to fatherless sons is going to screw you.

The poll doesn't even mention marriage. Nor is the right to marry conditioned on children or the ability to have them.

Remember, just because you ignored the Supreme Court's explicit contradicting you don't mean that appellant courts are similarly obligated to do so.

 

[Skylar]

No, the did not.

Says you, citing yourself. The Supreme Court contradicts you:

Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

You ignoring the Supreme Court and replacing their findings with your imagination......that's not a legal argument, Sil.

 

[mdk]

Our courts did take the interests of children into account, see, e.g.:

Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

False. They did not. They only took into account what they wanted to and never did discuss any harm caused to a child by depriving them of either a father or mother for life. They barely glanced at what a completely new structure of marriage would do to children; only as a cursory gesture to "cover their tracks" lest they look exactly like they were: pandering to a gay cult....the children be damned...

Point me to language in argument transcripts or the Opinion which weighed a fatherless son or a motherless daughter and justified it to facilitate gay marriage.

You can't. And that's a fact. Children (as a whole, who are all bound to the new law over time) were not represented at Obergefell as to their unique share of the marriage contract. And that is a mistrial. And, from the polling results it is clear here that an overwhelming majority of the American public agree with me on this fact.

How can a mistrial occur when a trial has never taken place? You try so hard to sound intelligent but every time you post you reveal the exact opposite. lol

A straw poll on amessage board doesn't mean the majority of the American public agrees with you. Those are lies you tell yourself you so can pretend your life's work hasn't been an abject failure.

 

[mdk]

The poll at the top of this page clearly states that a majority of Americans feel that vanilla ice-cream is the best flavor. lol.

 

[Skylar]

Our courts did take the interests of children into account, see, e.g.:

Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

False. They did not. They only took into account what they wanted to and never did discuss any harm caused to a child by depriving them of either a father or mother for life.

Marriage doesn't define the gender of one's parents, Sil. Making your entire argument irrelevant.

Nor does denying marriage to same sex parents magically change them into opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that these children never have married parents. Which hurts them and helps no child. Meaning that denial of same sex marriage provide no remedy for the 'problems' you cite. Making your argument irrelevant again.

The Supreme Court explicitly contradicts you. You ignore the Supreme Court insisting that you know better.

Um.....so? Your pseudo-legal gibberish has nothing to do with our law nor has the slightest impact on any legal outcome.

Get used to the idea. As ignoring the Supreme Court isn't actually a legal argument.

You can't. And that's a fact. Children (as a whole, who are all bound to the new law over time) were not represented at Obergefell as to their unique share of the marriage contract. And that is a mistrial. And, from the polling results it is clear here that an overwhelming majority of the American public agree with me on this fact.

There's no requirement that 'all children' be represented in a Supreme Court hearing.

No Supreme Court hearing has ever included a 'representative' for 'all children' in the Court's history.

A Supreme Court hearing isn't a 'trial'. Making your babble about a 'mistrial' more ignorant nonsense.

Try again.

 

[Debra K]

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

Our national society as a whole has been evolving since day one. You are not "being dictated to." You have liberty to apply your concept of marriage to your own life. It appears, however, that you are lamenting the fact that you don't have the "power" to impose your ideas on everyone else in society. Many countrymen have felt your pain. Nevertheless, we have slowly progressed to include women and minorities within the classes of people entitled to enjoy the same civil rights that others enjoy. I don't understand why you believe it is "more sensible" for our country to stand frozen in time for the purpose of empowering you and disempowering others. Oppression of others is not a rational or admirable goal.

 

[Skylar]

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.

The fact is that you are ignoring your own standards. As when we're speaking of single parents, where a child is denied a 'mother and a father', you ignore it. Giving it a complete pass based on 'hope'.

'Hope' isn't a mother and a father. You've ignored your own standards, wiping your ass with your own rationale. And this despite single parenthood being orders of magnitude more common than same sex parenting. If even you are going to ignore your argument, surely you can understand why we don't have much use for it.

Especially when Sy utterly obliterated your argument with the observation that you oppose a child having two mothers and no father. But have no problem with a child having only one mom and no father.

Which is just silly.

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.

I believe you're referring to the Infancy Doctrine. And it says nothing you do. The Infancy Doctrine regards *explicit* minor contracts that bind children, like say a contract with a child actor. No court nor law recognizing marriage of parents as creating a minor contract for their children.

You do, citing your imagination. And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

See, Sil....this, right here, is why your every legal prediction is wrong. You keep citing your imagination as the law, making up pseudo-legal gibberish that no law nor court recognizes. And then demanding that the actual courts abide your imagination while ignoring the law.

And they don't.

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.

Says you. The Supreme Court is under no such burden, nor has any obligation to 'prove' anything to you. Their findings explicitly contradict you. So you ignore the Supreme Court.

Ignoring the Supreme Court is not a legal argument.