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

[Skylar]

Remember, all the evidence you ignore.....we can still see it. Pretending none of it exists just demonstrates that your position is founded in willful ignorance

And of course, your insistence that we 'void' all same sex marriages doesn't do a thing to address what you consider the 'problem'. As same sex parents denied marriage are still same sex parents. All denying those parents marriage does is guarantee that their children never have married parents.

Which hurts those children and help no child.

See how that works? Your proposal is worse than useless.

No more so than yours.

On the contrary, the courts have gone into elaborate detail as to all the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage. And all the benefits to children when their parents are allowed to marry.

The benefits to those children make my proposal far better than 'useless'. Where as Sil can't even explain how denying marriage same sex parents helps their children. Or any child.

A set of married parents means a father and a mother. You only hurt a child by giving him a mockery of what he needs, in place of what he really needs.

Here are some of the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage:

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.

Now, with some of the serious harms listed, tell us....how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

Sil has never been able to give us any credible answer. And instead insists that they should be harmed. Perhaps you can do better.

 

[Syriusly]

and if their both dead?? forgot that one eh??

Bad things happen. That's no excuse for intentionally causing bad things to happen.

Among the terrible ills that arise, is abject illiteracy, wherein you wind up with people who are so stupidly illiterate that they don't even know the difference between “their” and “they're”.

Lordy, lordy- here comes the USMB Grammar Police......

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Another classic. Name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes? You can't b/c it hasn't and nor should it happen. Remember, Kim Davis isn't a church.

If present direction continues, then it will happen.

The line was crossed when bakers, photographers, and similar businesses were force by law to cater to disgusting homosexual mockeries of weddings or else be punished for refusing to do so. That is a line that never should have even been approached, much less crossed. It's only a very small step from there to doing the same thing to churches and to clergy. Yes, that blatantly violates the First Amendment, but that line has already been crossed. If the First Amendment was going to be left standing, it would have been left standing when it was private businesses being so forced.

 

[Syriusly]

Remember, all the evidence you ignore.....we can still see it. Pretending none of it exists just demonstrates that your position is founded in willful ignorance

And of course, your insistence that we 'void' all same sex marriages doesn't do a thing to address what you consider the 'problem'. As same sex parents denied marriage are still same sex parents. All denying those parents marriage does is guarantee that their children never have married parents.

Which hurts those children and help no child.

See how that works? Your proposal is worse than useless.

No more so than yours.

On the contrary, the courts have gone into elaborate detail as to all the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage. And all the benefits to children when their parents are allowed to marry.

The benefits to those children make my proposal far better than 'useless'. Where as Sil can't even explain how denying marriage same sex parents helps their children. Or any child.

A set of married parents means a father and a mother. You only hurt a child by giving him a mockery of what he needs, in place of what he really needs.

Here are some of the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage:

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.

Now, with some of the serious harms listed, tell us....how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

Sil has never been able to give us any credible answer. And instead insists that they should be harmed. Perhaps you can do better.

I am still waiting also.

I know my marriage hasn't been harmed because gay couples can get married.
I know my daughter is not harmed because children of gay couples can now have married parents.

Who are these fictional children who are harmed because Bob can marry Bill?

 

[Syriusly]

Another classic. Name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes? You can't b/c it hasn't and nor should it happen. Remember, Kim Davis isn't a church.

If present direction continues, then it will happen.

The line was crossed when bakers, photographers, and similar businesses were force by law to cater to disgusting homosexual mockeries of weddingsd.

The line was crossed when Christians were told that they didn't get to ignore the law because they suddenly discovered they were Christians when they were asked to bake a cake for a gay couple.

Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.

 

[Skylar]

Another classic. Name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes? You can't b/c it hasn't and nor should it happen. Remember, Kim Davis isn't a church.

If present direction continues, then it will happen.

Unless it doesn't. You could man a battleship with the failed slippery slope fallacies the opponents of same sex marriage have insisted 'will happen'.

And never did.

The line was crossed when bakers, photographers, and similar businesses were force by law to cater to disgusting homosexual mockeries of weddings or else be punished for refusing to do so.

You don't seem familiar with the concept of Public Accomidation laws. Or that churches aren't subject to them.

Why not cite entertainment law or international finance law for as much relevance as your examples have to what we're discussion.

That is a line that never should have even been approached, much less crossed. It's only a very small step from there to doing the same thing to churches and to clergy. Yes, that blatantly violates the First Amendment, but that line has already been crossed. If the First Amendment was going to be left standing, it would have been left standing when it was private businesses being so forced.

Its actually quite a large step. As none of the laws you've alluded to apply to churches. Nor ever have.

So other than the utter irrelevance of the entire body of law you've cited with churches.......what other pseudo-legal nonsense would you like to offer us?

 

[Syriusly]

Another classic. Name a single church that has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes? You can't b/c it hasn't and nor should it happen. Remember, Kim Davis isn't a church.

That is a line that never should have even been approached, much less crossed. It's only a very small step from there to doing the same thing to churches and to clergy. .

Business's were forced to sell to inter-racial couples- yet despite the deeply held religious beliefs of some people that inter-racial marriages were sinful- they were forced to do so.

Yet not a single church was ever forced to marry an inter-racial couple.

Despite the ignorance of the far right- a church is not a business- a business is not a church.

Public Accommodation laws apply to business's- not to church's.

And that has been the case since 1964.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

A set of married parents can mean a father and a mother, or a mother and a mother, or a father and a father.

Only to the same sort of distorted mind that believes that Bruce Jenner is a woman.[/QUOTE]

It takes a man and a woman, a father and a mother, to create a child.

That is also what it takes to comprise a functional set of parents to that child.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.

The Constitution is the highest law, in this nation, and the First Amendment is part of it. You cannot advocate such blatant disregard for it, and still credibly speak of any rule of law.

 

[Skylar]

It takes a man and a woman, a father and a mother, to create a child.

That is also what it takes to comprise a functional set of parents to that child.

Um, Bob....the capacity to conceive a child isn't what makes good parents. Loving, caring for, providing for and nurturing your child is what makes good parents. All of which a same sex couple can do and an opposite sex couple can do.

 

[Skylar]

Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.

The Constitution is the highest law, in this nation, and the First Amendment is part of it. You cannot advocate such blatant disregard for it, and still credibly speak of any rule of law.

The 1st amendment doesn't mean that Christians or any religion can ignore every law. It never has. You're describing Christian Sharia, where any Christian can ignore any law they wish.

That's not our system or law.

 

[Skylar]

Remember, all the evidence you ignore.....we can still see it. Pretending none of it exists just demonstrates that your position is founded in willful ignorance

And of course, your insistence that we 'void' all same sex marriages doesn't do a thing to address what you consider the 'problem'. As same sex parents denied marriage are still same sex parents. All denying those parents marriage does is guarantee that their children never have married parents.

Which hurts those children and help no child.

See how that works? Your proposal is worse than useless.

No more so than yours.

On the contrary, the courts have gone into elaborate detail as to all the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage. And all the benefits to children when their parents are allowed to marry.

The benefits to those children make my proposal far better than 'useless'. Where as Sil can't even explain how denying marriage same sex parents helps their children. Or any child.

A set of married parents means a father and a mother. You only hurt a child by giving him a mockery of what he needs, in place of what he really needs.

Here are some of the harms caused to children when you deny their parents marriage:

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.

Now, with some of the serious harms listed, tell us....how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

Sil has never been able to give us any credible answer. And instead insists that they should be harmed. Perhaps you can do better.

I am still waiting also.

I know my marriage hasn't been harmed because gay couples can get married.
I know my daughter is not harmed because children of gay couples can now have married parents.

Who are these fictional children who are harmed because Bob can marry Bill?

Bob appears to have run from the question like it was on fire. Sil has never done any better.

The reason is simple: denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.

Which hurts those children and helps none.

 

[Asclepias]

I found it impressive that ANY Democrats claimed to have had both parents.

I find it impressive you can spell impressive.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The 1st amendment doesn't mean that Christians or any religion can ignore every law. It never has. You're describing Christian Sharia, where any Christian can ignore any law they wish.

That's not our system or law.

It certainly does mean, however, that any lesser law that violates the First Amendment is invalid.

And what you advocate blatantly violates the First Amendment.

You cannot even get to your position without breaking the highest law, without trashing the First Amendment; and by doing that, you destroy any credibility in speaking of the rule of law,or of any obligation to obey the law.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The reason is simple: denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.

Which hurts those children and helps none.

There is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex. Marriage, by definition, always has been, and will always be, between a man and a woman.

You do not help children by offering them a fraudulent mockery, and insisting that it is the same as the genuine thing that is being mocked.

 

[Asclepias]

The reason is simple: denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.

Which hurts those children and helps none.

There is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex. Marriage, by definition, always has been, and will always be, between a man and a woman.

You do not help children by offering them a fraudulent mockery, and insisting that it is the same as the genuine thing that is being mocked.

Definitions change. Matter of fact gay used to mean happy.

 

[Skylar]

The reason is simple: denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.

Which hurts those children and helps none.

There is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex.

Except that there is.

Marriage, by definition, always has been, and will always be, between a man and a woman.

Marriage is, by definition, whatever we agree it is. As we invented it. And marriage by definition includes same sex couples.

You can tell...by how same sex marriage is being performed in 50 of 50 States.

You do not help children by offering them a fraudulent mockery, and insisting that it is the same as the genuine thing that is being mocked.

The harms in denying same sex marriage are legion:

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.

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

 

[Skylar]

The 1st amendment doesn't mean that Christians or any religion can ignore every law. It never has. You're describing Christian Sharia, where any Christian can ignore any law they wish.

That's not our system or law.

It certainly does mean, however, that any lesser law that violates the First Amendment is invalid.

Violate the 1st amendment....according to who? So far you've cited yourself as a legal authority on the matter. And you're nobody.

And what you advocate blatantly violates the First Amendment.

Blatantly violates the First Amendment....according to who? There's you citing nobody. What else have you got? Again, your personal interpretation would allow any Christian to ignore any law they wish.

That's never been our system of law. Christians are subject to the law too, Bob.

 

[Skylar]

The reason is simple: denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.

Which hurts those children and helps none.

There is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex. Marriage, by definition, always has been, and will always be, between a man and a woman.

You do not help children by offering them a fraudulent mockery, and insisting that it is the same as the genuine thing that is being mocked.

Definitions change. Matter of fact gay used to mean happy.

And faggots were a bundle of wood. So much for eternal definitions.

 

[Syriusly]

A set of married parents can mean a father and a mother, or a mother and a mother, or a father and a father.

n.

That is also what it takes to comprise a functional set of parents to that child.[/QUOTE]

I have seen far to many married couples who were technically and legally the 'mother and father' but were functionally lousy parents to accept that is the essential criteria.

I am all for two parents of the opposite gender- if they are willing to be actual parents. But being a parent myself- I am thrilled to see a child being raised well by two parents of the opposite gender or being raised by well by a single parent.

And unlike you- I would never call a child a bastard.