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

[Bob Blaylock]

Marriage is what we say it is.

Only in the same delusional manner that you could state that “Bruce Jenner is a woman because we say he 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.

What do all of these scenarios that you list have in common, with genuine marriage as we now now it, but not in common with “same-sex ‘marriage’”?

In which of these scenarios was it ever delusionally thought that there could be such a thing as a “marriage” between two people of the same sex?

Marriage always has and always will be between a man and a woman. Trying to call relationship between two men or between two women a “marriage”, and even getting it recognized as such by law, doesn't make it so.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is what we say it is.

Only in the same delusional manner that you could state that “Bruce Jenner is a woman because we say he is.”

Or in acknowledgement of historic, linguistic and legal reality. As marriage has changed often over the years. You pretend it never has.

We're not obligated to pretend with you.

What do all of these scenarios that you list have in common, with genuine marriage as we now now it, but not in common with “same-sex ‘marriage’”?

In which of these scenarios was it ever delusionally thought that there could be such a thing as a “marriage” between two people of the same sex?

Marriage always has and always will be between a man and a woman. Trying to call relationship between two men or between two women a “marriage”, and even getting it recognized as such by law, doesn't make it so.

Except when it isn't. Children are neither men nor women. Marriage has occurred between children and the SPIRITS of dead children. Sometimes the numbers are different, with one man and many women. Sometimes its a union of equals. Sometimes its a business arrangement. And sometimes it includes men and men. Or women and women.

Your insistence that the version of marriage that you're comfortable with defines the sole meaning of the term is, of course, nonsense.

As the meaning changes when we say it changes. We invented marriage. And it defines what we decide it defines.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage is what we say it is.

Only in the same delusional manner that you could

Nothing delusional at all about calling marriage what it is- marriage as defined in the dictionary- and by law- is the union of two consenting adults.

What is delusional is still denying that gay couples are not marrying.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage always has and always will be between a man and a woman. Trying to call relationship between two men or between two women a “marriage”, and even getting it recognized as such by law, doesn't make it so.

Except- of course it hasn't.

Marriage has been among other things:

• between a boy and a girl
• between a man and a girl
• between a boy and a woman
• between a man and many women
• between a woman and many men
• between two adults of either gender

 

[rcfieldz]

Am I the only one who thinks the OP may need to be neutered?

 

[Silhouette]

Am I the only one who thinks the OP may need to be neutered?

Why? Because I asked people if they had a mother and father in their life and thought it was important?

Yeah, I bet that pisses you off. Good. 80-90% in favor.

 

[mdk]

Am I the only one who thinks the OP may need to be neutered?

Why? Because I asked people if they had a mother and father in their life and thought it was important?

Yeah, I bet that pisses you off. Good. 80-90% in favor.

Wait...I thought those numbers meant 80-90% of Americans don't support gay marriage? lol

 

[Silhouette]

Wait...I thought those numbers meant 80-90% of Americans don't support gay marriage? lol

Exactly. 80-90% of Americans don't support imprisoning children away from either a father or mother for life. Interchangeable concepts.

 

[Skylar]

Am I the only one who thinks the OP may need to be neutered?

Why? Because I asked people if they had a mother and father in their life and thought it was important?

Yeah, I bet that pisses you off. Good. 80-90% in favor.

Perhaps cause you keep fronting a fallacy even you know is unsupportable. Your entire argument, your justification, your very motivation breaks on the same cartoon simple question:

How does denying marriage to same sex parents help their kids?

You have no answer. And you know you have no answer. You know your proposal would do nothing but hurt children and help none. But you'll gladly hurt any number of children if it means you can hurt gay people too.

And that's quite simply loathsome.

 

[Skylar]

Wait...I thought those numbers meant 80-90% of Americans don't support gay marriage? lol

Exactly. 80-90% of Americans don't support imprisoning children away from either a father or mother for life. Interchangeable concepts.

The gender of a child's parents isn't determined by marriage. Nor does denying marriage to same sex parents magically change them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children will never have married parents. Which hurts their children while helping none.

But you already know all that. You know your 'solution' of denying marriage to same sex parents does nothing to remedy your 'problem' of same sex parenting. But it would hurt gay people. And that's more than enough justification for you to hurt hundreds of thousands of children to do it.

Nope. We're not doing any of that.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The gender of a child's parents isn't determined by marriage. Nor does denying marriage to same sex parents magically change them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children will never have married parents. Which hurts their children while helping none.

Of course, you are deliberately missing the important point, here. You're defending a situation in which children are intentionally put into a broken mockery of a “family”, that is missing one parent, and in which a duplicate of the other parent is offered in stead—a child who has no mother and two “fathers”, or a child with no father and two “mothers”.

This is an unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral situation in which to put these children; and piling on top of it the fraud of declaring these two same-sex “parents” to be “married” to each other does nothing to mitigate it. Just more lies and madness on top of a situation that is already based on lies and madness.

If you really care about the welfare of these children, then you ought to be totally opposed to putting them in this situation to begin with; rather than merely offering them a hollow fraud that tries to put an unconvincing veneer of normality on what is unalterably and undisguisably an abnormal and unnatural arrangement.

I think it is clear enough that your motive has nothing at all to do with the welfare of the children that are involved, but rather with the interests of the sick perverts who would use these children as cover for their own selfish and perverted agenda.

 

[Claudette]

You bet your ass I had two parents.

Parents who were busy being parents and not trying to be my best friend.

Parents who kicked my ass when I needed it and gave praise when deserved.

Both are gone now and I appreciate them every day as do my siblings.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

I'm tired of listening to people blame their parents for what shitty people they are.

But since even POTENTIAL Children are more important that the happiness of adults, we need to put people in servitude to their children. THis is the retarded argument that Silly-wet is using to try to hide his psychopathic homophobia (read latent homosexuality) behind

 

[mdk]

Wait...I thought those numbers meant 80-90% of Americans don't support gay marriage? lol

Exactly. 80-90% of Americans don't support imprisoning children away from either a father or mother for life. Interchangeable concepts.

You do realize the only person you are fooling is yourself, right?

 

[sealybobo]

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.

I'm tired of listening to people blame their parents for what shitty people they are.

But since even POTENTIAL Children are more important that the happiness of adults, we need to put people in servitude to their children. THis is the retarded argument that Silly-wet is using to try to hide his psychopathic homophobia (read latent homosexuality) behind

Im tired of seeing almost every criminals didn't have a dad. Hard to ignore it is partially their parents fault. Doesn't mean the criminal should not be punished but is there a way to get parents to be better parents?

I watch my brother with his kids and wonder why isn't every dad that involved.

Not every man is equal. Think about all the 18 year old guys who are getting laid. How many of them would be good parents?

We really are lucky if we were born to two good parents.

 

[Inevitable]

Wait...I thought those numbers meant 80-90% of Americans don't support gay marriage? lol

Exactly. 80-90% of Americans don't support imprisoning children away from either a father or mother for life. Interchangeable concepts.

Luckily this dishonesty doesn't work in most cases

 

[mdk]

Luckily this dishonesty doesn't work in most cases

It only works to confirm Sil's bias. The instant she can't find a way to use children to harm gay people, she discards them into the trash.

 

[Inevitable]

Luckily this dishonesty doesn't work in most cases

It only works to confirm Sil's bias. The instant she can't find a way to use children to harm gay people, she discards them into the trash.

It would only eek with people that already agree, thus it doesn't work at all. Because people already feel that way.

 

[Skylar]

The gender of a child's parents isn't determined by marriage. Nor does denying marriage to same sex parents magically change them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children will never have married parents. Which hurts their children while helping none.

Of course, you are deliberately missing the important point, here. You're defending a situation in which children are intentionally put into a broken mockery of a “family”, that is missing one parent, and in which a duplicate of the other parent is offered in stead—a child who has no mother and two “fathers”, or a child with no father and two “mothers”.

You're railing against same sex parenting. Which occurs regardless of same sex marriage. If you recognize marriage for same sex couples, if you deny gays marriage.....same sex parents are still same sex parents. Denying same sex parents marriage doesn't remedy anything you're complaining about. Its simply irrelevant to it.

A point that just obliterates your entire argument.

And just to demonstrate once again how flagrantly disingenuous your entire argument is, I'll ask you the same question I did before. And watch you evade, weasel and refuse to answer. As you've been railing against same sex parenting, calling it unnatural, immoral, lies and madness...

......are you calling for the children of same sex parents to be taken from them?

If yes, just admit it. If no, then I have how, pray tell, does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

We both know you have no answer for that either. But its fun to have you make my argument for me by awkwardly trying to avoid the question.

This is an unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral situation in which to put these children; and piling on top of it the fraud of declaring these two same-sex “parents” to be “married” to each other does nothing to mitigate it. Just more lies and madness on top of a situation that is already based on lies and madness.

Unnatural, immoral, lies and madness....according to who? Remember, Bob......your Begging the Question fallacy isn't actually evidence. Which is why your insistence that marriage is only what *you* believe it is failed so utterly. And you're no more the lone arbiter of nature, morality, truth or sanity than you are marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

It only works to confirm Sil's bias.

Don't forget the rest of the 80-90%'s "bias" also inevitable. Though one man's "bias" is another man's "clear majority".