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

[Bob Blaylock]

'the consequences' being millions of same gender couples enjoying the same legal marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

That is nonsense.

Marriage is only between a man and a woman, and it is not possible for two men or for two women to have the same kind of relationship that a man and a woman can have with one another. The marital relationship is specifically dependent on the differences between a man and a woman, and how each completes the other. You just cannot have that without both a man and a woman.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Of course, the judges who made these decisions will not be the ones to bear the consequences of them. Those who will pay the price are not being given a voice or a choice.

What consequences are prices being paid for?

Fatherless children, for one thing. Children willfully and deliberately deprived of a father.

Motherless children, for another. Children willfully and deliberately deprived of a mother.

The children that are being deliberately harmed and abused in this unconscionable manner are not being given any voice or representation. They are being thrown under the bus, their needs completely disregarded, in order to cater to immoral perverts.

 

[mdk]

The marital relationship is specifically dependent on the differences between a man and a woman, and how each completes the other.

Complete and utter bullshit.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The supreme Court found that same sex parents are a benefit to children because they are okay with raising damaged children into damaged adults. It's inclusive and diverse. Yes there is a price to be paid for all that inclusiveness and diversity. The court is prepared to pay it. They cannot force you to accept such diversity. They can lie and persuade. Ultimately it is up to the individual to accept or reject perversion for themselves and their own families.

Of course, the judges who made these decisions will not be the ones to bear the consequences of them. Those who will pay the price are not being given a voice or a choice.

What consequences are prices being paid for?

It's because of religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are divisive, very bigoted and exclusive (and by exclusive, I don't mean in a good way).

Religious beliefs are explicitly protected under the First Amendment. Being a sick, immoral, disgusting pervert is not, nor is forcing others who want no part of these perversions to participate in, celebrate, support, or otherwise be affected by them.

 

[Dekster]

'the consequences' being millions of same gender couples enjoying the same legal marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

That is nonsense.

Marriage is only between a man and a woman, and it is not possible for two men or for two women to have the same kind of relationship that a man and a woman can have with one another. The marital relationship is specifically dependent on the differences between a man and a woman, and how each completes the other. You just cannot have that without both a man and a woman.

Hardly true at all. Society is less likely to get a future taxpayer or two out of the same sex relationships, but otherwise, a same sex couple can have the same sort of relationship as any other couple except that more people will question the legitimacy of that emotional commitment than they will that of an opposite sex couple.

 

[Silhouette]

Society is less likely to get a future taxpayer or two out of the same sex relationships, but otherwise, a same sex couple can have the same sort of relationship as any other couple except that more people will question the legitimacy of that emotional commitment than they will that of an opposite sex couple.

This isn't about taxpayers or the adults carrying on with each other. This is about what children got out of marriage for over a thousand years: a guaranteed mother and father. That guarantee from marriage was revoked. The models were tampered with. Adults don't need a piece of paper for their relationship. And if they're just getting married for tax purposes, that defies the commitment. Children enjoyed benefits of the marriage contract until last Summer. That mistrial will be reviewed again.

 

[mdk]

Children enjoyed benefits of the marriage contract until last Summer. That mistrial will be reviewed again.

Children are not a part of a marriage contract and a trial has to occur first before there can be a mistrial.

 

[Inevitable]

What you are missing is that the legal and medical communities know that forcing children into same sex parenting will damage them for life and they are okay with that.

That hasn't been tested under oath in a court of law. And if it has and people beholden to the non-scientific entity "The American Psychological Association" now run by a politically correct LGBT mouthpiece (all medical entities look to them on issue of psychology as a reflex) testified, then a re-hearing is in order, using child advocates in court (lawyers for children's unique share in the marriage contract) calling their opposing expert testimonies..

Yes everybody that doesn't agree with your political views is a mouthpiece or part of some conspiracy.

Riiiiiiiiight

 

[Dekster]

Society is less likely to get a future taxpayer or two out of the same sex relationships, but otherwise, a same sex couple can have the same sort of relationship as any other couple except that more people will question the legitimacy of that emotional commitment than they will that of an opposite sex couple.

This isn't about taxpayers or the adults carrying on with each other. This is about what children got out of marriage for over a thousand years: a guaranteed mother and father. That guarantee from marriage was revoked. The models were tampered with. Adults don't need a piece of paper for their relationship. And if they're just getting married for tax purposes, that defies the commitment. Children enjoyed benefits of the marriage contract until last Summer. That mistrial will be reviewed again.

A very opportunistic version of what children lives were like for most of those 1000 years. Unless you were the first born son, you were an involuntary servant who had no payoff and if you were female, you would be lucky if you weren't married off to some old man as soon as you turned 13.

 

[Skylar]

What you are missing is that the legal and medical communities know that forcing children into same sex parenting will damage them for life and they are okay with that.

That hasn't been tested under oath in a court of law.

The courts explicitly found that same sex marriage benefits children. You are quite simply ignoring the explicit findings of the Supreme Court and replacing it with your imagination.

That's not a legal argument.

Worse, the Supreme Court has found that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. You ignore this explicit finding of the Supreme Court, insisting that the right to marry is conditioned on children....because you say so.

That's not a legal argument either.

And if it has and people beholden to the non-scientific entity "The American Psychological Association" now run by a politically correct LGBT mouthpiece (all medical entities look to them on issue of psychology as a reflex) testified, then a re-hearing is in order, using child advocates in court (lawyers for children's unique share in the marriage contract) calling their opposing expert testimonies..

No court nor law recognizes that children are parties to the 'marriage contract'. You made that up. And then insist that your imagination is the law.

That's not a legal argument either.

The supreme Court found that same sex parents are a benefit to children because they are okay with raising damaged children into damaged adults. It's inclusive and diverse. Yes there is a price to be paid for all that inclusiveness and diversity. The court is prepared to pay it. They cannot force you to accept such diversity. They can lie and persuade. Ultimately it is up to the individual to accept or reject perversion for themselves and their own families.

It was more because everyone agreed that same sex couples can form loving, supportive families. Even those who opposed same sex marriage.

As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples. See Brief for Gary J. Gates as Amicus Curiae 4. Most States have allowed gays and lesbians to adopt, either as individuals or as couples, and many adopted and foster children have same-sex parents, see id., at 5. This provides powerful confirmation from the law itself that gays and lesbians can create loving, supportive families.

You don't have to accept that the court is correct or that same sex marriage is valid. The law does. And Sil is pretending hers is a legal argument. Explicit contradiction by the Supreme Court and an utter lack of any court or law recognizing any of her pseudo-legal gibberish demonstrates she's not.

She's never presented a legal argument. She's presented her imagination and pretended it was law.

No one, no court, no judge is obligated to pretend with her.

 

[Skylar]

The supreme Court found that same sex parents are a benefit to children because they are okay with raising damaged children into damaged adults. It's inclusive and diverse. Yes there is a price to be paid for all that inclusiveness and diversity. The court is prepared to pay it. They cannot force you to accept such diversity. They can lie and persuade. Ultimately it is up to the individual to accept or reject perversion for themselves and their own families.

Of course, the judges who made these decisions will not be the ones to bear the consequences of them. Those who will pay the price are not being given a voice or a choice.

The Obergefell ruling is irrelevant to same sex parenting.

Acknowledge gay marriage, deny marriage to gays.....and same sex parents are still same sex parents. The only difference as far as the children are concerned is that recognizing same sex marriage benefits the children. Denying same sex marriage to their parents hurts those children.

That's the absurdity of the entire 'deny same sex marriage for the children' nonsense. Denying same sex marriage doesn't 'remedy' a single thing you're complaining about. Its not like if you deny marriage to same sex parents they magically become opposite sex parents. All you do is guarantee their children never have married parents.

Which hurts children by the hundreds of thousands and help none.

Oh, and the Supreme Court already found that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them:

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.

So even hypothetically, 'deny same sex marriage for the children' is a nonsense argument.

 

[Skylar]

'the consequences' being millions of same gender couples enjoying the same legal marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

That is nonsense.

Marriage is only between a man and a woman, and it is not possible for two men or for two women to have the same kind of relationship that a man and a woman can have with one another. The marital relationship is specifically dependent on the differences between a man and a woman, and how each completes the other. You just cannot have that without both a man and a woman.

Except none of that is actually true. Who says that marriage is only between one man and one woman? You citing your subjective opinion.

You're confusing your personal opinion with an objective fact. And they aren't the same thing.

 

[Skylar]

Society is less likely to get a future taxpayer or two out of the same sex relationships, but otherwise, a same sex couple can have the same sort of relationship as any other couple except that more people will question the legitimacy of that emotional commitment than they will that of an opposite sex couple.

This isn't about taxpayers or the adults carrying on with each other. This is about what children got out of marriage for over a thousand years: a guaranteed mother and father.

Pure delusional fiction. Marriage a thousand years ago was about property. A ma owned his wife. A man owned his children. Children were property, typically used for manual labor on farms.

You're making up this fictionalized fantasy about marriage.......based on jack shit. Just your imagination. And marriage isn't defined by your imagination.

That guarantee from marriage was revoked. The models were tampered with. Adults don't need a piece of paper for their relationship. And if they're just getting married for tax purposes, that defies the commitment. Children enjoyed benefits of the marriage contract until last Summer. That mistrial will be reviewed again.

There was no 'guarantee'. You imagined it. Children aren't a party to the marriage of their parents. You imagined it. Children aren't 'third party beneficiaries' of the marriage of their parents. You imagined that too.

And your imagination is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. And thus void.

 

[Skylar]

The supreme Court found that same sex parents are a benefit to children because they are okay with raising damaged children into damaged adults. It's inclusive and diverse. Yes there is a price to be paid for all that inclusiveness and diversity. The court is prepared to pay it. They cannot force you to accept such diversity. They can lie and persuade. Ultimately it is up to the individual to accept or reject perversion for themselves and their own families.

Of course, the judges who made these decisions will not be the ones to bear the consequences of them. Those who will pay the price are not being given a voice or a choice.

What consequences are prices being paid for?

It's because of religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are divisive, very bigoted and exclusive (and by exclusive, I don't mean in a good way).

Religious beliefs are explicitly protected under the First Amendment. Being a sick, immoral, disgusting pervert is not, nor is forcing others who want no part of these perversions to participate in, celebrate, support, or otherwise be affected by them.

Bob, you can believe whatever you want. What you can't do is force your religion onto other people against their will. And your religion doesn't define marriage for anyone who doesn't believe what yo do. And certainly not what marriage is under the law.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Inevitable]

That principle has to go both ways.

It absolutely does. Nobody tells you how to live. And if they do, I'd defend you against them.

If I were in a profession fhat caters to weddings or orher events, then I need to be allowed not to have anything to do with a sick, immoral, homosexual mockery of a wedding.

You are allowed just that. Tell anybody that you don't want to serve you have the right to refuse service to anybody for any reason.

You don't owe anybody a reason. Frankly it's of no importance to them your reason. Now if you open your mouth and start preaching to them like the Kleins did, you give them fodder for complaints.

You are entitled to your opinion. You aren't entitled to preach to a captive audience.

That's my right, under the First Amendment, but the disgusting perverts insist that they have a “right” to force this sickness and madness on those of us who want no part of it; and thay this ersatz “right” supersedes the First Amendment.

When has anybody forced you to have a same sex marriage?

 

[Skylar]

You cannot discriminate against ANYONE if you are going to open a public accommodation business. Deal with it.

Where, in the First Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution, is government authorized to compel a citizen to waive any of his Constitutional rights—including freedoms of religion, expression, conscience, and association—as a condition of being allowed to make an honest living?

And who said that a citizen is compelled to waive his constitutional right?

Again, Bob.....you 'insisting it must be so because you say it is' doesn't establish a constitutional violation. As you citing you is legally and constitutionally meaningless.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Acknowledge gay marriage, deny marriage to gays.....and same sex parents are still same sex parents. The only difference as far as the children are concerned is that recognizing same sex marriage benefits the children. Denying same sex marriage to their parents hurts those children.

Willfully depriving children of a mother or of a father, is what hurts them. Giving legal blessing to this deprivation does nothing to mitigate the harm that it causes.

You cannot, in any honestly, defend this unnatural and harmful arrangement, offer a fraudulent mockery of a “marriage” in place of the real thing, and then claim that you are in any way concerned about the well-being of the children who are caught up in this whole mess. Yours is the position that is harmful to children.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Bob, you can believe whatever you want. What you can't do is force your religion onto other people against their will.

Your side certainly claims the “right” to force its sick perversions on people who want no part of it, and on children who are given no say at all.

Why is it OK to force immorality on others, but not to force morality?

 

[Skylar]

Acknowledge gay marriage, deny marriage to gays.....and same sex parents are still same sex parents. The only difference as far as the children are concerned is that recognizing same sex marriage benefits the children. Denying same sex marriage to their parents hurts those children.

Willfully depriving children of a mother or of a father, is what hurts them. Giving legal blessing to this deprivation does nothing to mitigate the harm that it causes.

Then you admit that same sex marriage has nothing to do with this. As what you're railing against is same sex parenting. And regardless of if we recognize same sex marriage or deny it, same sex parents are same sex parents.

You cannot, in any honestly, defend this unnatural and harmful arrangement, offer a fraudulent mockery of a “marriage” in place of the real thing, and then claim that you are in any way concerned about the well-being of the children who are caught up in this whole mess. Yours is the position that is harmful to children.

Bob, you don't define 'honesty'. Making your insistence that unless I agree with you I'm not 'honest' more fallacious nonsense. Really, is there anything to you but the same Begging the Question fallacy?

And even you can't make your steaming rhetorical pile of an argument work. As it breaks on the same cartoon simple question:

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

Be honest. Because the courts have gone into elaborate detail all the harm that denying marriage to same sex parents can cause their kids.

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.....

....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

Humiliation, damage to the integrity and closeness of their own family, damage to their daily lives, financial harm, increased healthcare costs, denial of intregal part of family security. All these harms you pour out gladly onto the children of same sex couples by denying their parents marriage.

In exchange for what benefits?

 

[Skylar]

Bob, you can believe whatever you want. What you can't do is force your religion onto other people against their will.

Your side certainly claims the “right” to force its sick perversions on people who want no part of it, and on children who are given no say at all.

There's nothing 'sick' or 'perverted' in getting married or raising kids. Nor is there anything 'sick' or 'perverted' in buying a cake.

Try again. This time without the melodramatic hysterics.

Why is it OK to force immorality on others, but not to force morality?

Morality according to who, Bob? Remember, while *you* may believe you define all morality, you're nobody to the rest of us. All of your arguments, all of your claims *require* that we accept you as the sole authoritative arbiter of all morality, good, evil, the meaning of any word, all legal definitions, the constitution, violations of the constitution, and the sole and absolute definition of marriage.

And you're not.

Leaving you with your subjective opinion which you keep desperately trying to convince us is objective fact. And subjective isn't objective.

Is there anything to you, anything at all.....beyond this same stupid Begging the Question fallacy?