What Should Children Be Told About Marriage Equality?

[Silhouette]

I believe the rights of children should always be in the forefront of discussions involving relationships that include children.

Good, then visit this thread, read the OP, view the pictures in it and vote: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

Then come back here and tell us how you voted and why?

I would leave it as an option but not forced.
It is up to the discretion of the people involved.

If people want an agency that takes in kids and adopts them out to gay couples,
and others do not, then set up and run separate agencies. There is plenty of need
so why not have more organizations in place to handle the demand?

The state level can just be in charge of the process AFTER the decision is made
by the families, through whichever agency to match a child to a parent or couple.

I prefer for birth parents to have a say in deciding which family to adopt their child to.
as with divorce it is in the best interests of the child to have consensus and not conflict.

whatever it takes to make a smooth transition and maintain supportive relations for each child, that is what matters. if people have issues, resolve them and don't project them onto the children. set up separate systems if you can't agree, and match people/children to the families of their choice, and let other people with other values do the same. Respect each other and that is the best environment and support for children to have.

Tell me, in those people involved; would that include the orphaned children? They are the FIRST consideration. Adults are last in this debate. Visit the link in my last post and get back to me on that one...

Here. I'll just give it to you again: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

 

[GreenBean]

Oh jeez, more cliches.

Yeah, I am sure you hate to see things change. I am sure you would prefer it roll back 100 years to the time when a man could beat his wife as long as the stick he used was no bigger than his thumb. I'm sure you would prefer it be back to a situation where women could not leave the bad marriage because they had no marketable skills and no money of their own.

The women of today are strong, independent individuals. If you can't handle that, I guess blaming someone else is inevitable.

Your argument , whether you realize it or not is using a tactic known as "Framing" .

Framing is a psychological theory which suggests that people will have a different reaction to an idea when it is given a positive spin than they would if it was given a negative spin.

To spin the BS that the dissolution of the family unit is due to masculine brutality and machismo domination is a tactic that frames the argument in your favor -sorry buddy boy that shit don't fly.

Oh but labeling all feminists as "Rabid Man Hating Lesbian" is a legit argument? lol

And yes, there was brutality in marriages. It is not gone, but at least now it is not seen as something that should be ignored.

The increase in the number of divorces is due, mainly, to the removal of the stigma attached to being divorced. And if the people did not want to remain married, why would you want them to do so? People don't divorce to get out of good marriages. Why would you want them to stay in a bad one? Do you think that is good for the kids or for the couple involved?

Oh but labeling all feminists as "Rabid Man Hating Lesbian" is a legit argument? lol

Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth and misquoting me - I never used the word ALL and never said that all feminists are rabid man hating lesbians - just the elite leadership - the rest are useful idiots.

The increase in the number of divorces is due, mainly, to the removal of the stigma attached to being divorced.

That's a plausible theory , and a valid opinion - it probably could explain some percentage of the increase - but certainly not all

" Lesbians must become feminists and ... feminists must become Lesbians .,.. Changes which will have more than token effects on our lives will be led by women-identified Lesbians who understand the nature of our oppression and are therefore in a position to end it." Lesbians In Revolt - by Charlotte Bunch

 

[Katzndogz]

Each individual couple decides to marry and decides to divorce. Unless you want to claim that only liberals get divorced?

Socio-fascist Liberalism, Rabid Man Hating Lesbian fueled Feminism , are all aimed at destroying the most powerful and enduring of Human Institutions -The Family Unit . Divide and Conquer - drive a wedge between the foundation of the family unit -Mother and Father- you've won. The father was allways the symbol of strength - symbolically castrating the Male has been a long term goal of the socio-fascists

Oh jeez, more cliches.

Yeah, I am sure you hate to see things change. I am sure you would prefer it roll back 100 years to the time when a man could beat his wife as long as the stick he used was no bigger than his thumb. I'm sure you would prefer it be back to a situation where women could not leave the bad marriage because they had no marketable skills and no money of their own.

The women of today are strong, independent individuals. If you can't handle that, I guess blaming someone else is inevitable.

If only women were strong independent individuals! How much better off we would all be if they were. Some women are. For poor women, middle class women, most women, except for professional women or career women, they are not strong. They are the furthest from independent as you could find. They are dependent women who leave marriages, even good ones they just don't like, and become dependent on the government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The main problem with sibling marriages is the drastic increase in the chances for birth defects. But as the anti-gay crowd is so fond of pointing out, gays can't have kids. I would think two brothers marrying would be gross, but really none of my business. Consenting adults.

Do you believe that children and their civil rights should be a part of the retooling-marriage discussion?

If not, why not?

Marriage isn't being 'retooled,' it's not being 'altered,' 'changed,' or 'redefined'; same-sex couples are eligible to enter into the same marriage contracts as opposite-sex couples.

And given the fact that children are in no way 'harmed' in a family with same-sex parents, your lies concerning children are transparent, desperate demagoguery.

 

[GreenBean]

The main problem with sibling marriages is the drastic increase in the chances for birth defects. But as the anti-gay crowd is so fond of pointing out, gays can't have kids. I would think two brothers marrying would be gross, but really none of my business. Consenting adults.

Do you believe that children and their civil rights should be a part of the retooling-marriage discussion?

If not, why not?

Marriage isn't being 'retooled,' it's not being 'altered,' 'changed,' or 'redefined'; same-sex couples are eligible to enter into the same marriage contracts as opposite-sex couples.

And given the fact that children are in no way 'harmed' in a family with same-sex parents, your lies concerning children are transparent, desperate demagoguery.

Clayton - STFU - your quasi intellectual buffoonery isn't fooling anyone - not even your own side -
kindly stop taking up space on my screen THANKS

 

[Seawytch]

Back to the original question in the OP, children should be told what you are comfortable telling them in an age-appropriate manner. A kid at any age understands Robert and John love each other and are getting married.

Most conversations go thusly:

Mom: "Your uncle Robert and uncle John are getting married next month and we've been invited"
Kid: "Do I have to wear a suit"?
Mom: "No, nice slacks and a collared shirt will be fine. You've got that blue polo you can wear"
Kid: "Okay...Did my new video game come in the mail yet?"
Mom: "No, go outside."
Kid: "ahhhh, Mom!"

 

[Silhouette]

Yeah, I'll be you want to change the conversation...

 

[Silhouette]

Back to the original question in the OP, children should be told what you are comfortable telling them in an age-appropriate manner. A kid at any age understands Robert and John love each other and are getting married.

Most conversations go thusly:

Mom: "Your uncle Robert and uncle John are getting married next month and we've been invited"
Kid: "Do I have to wear a suit"?
Mom: "No, nice slacks and a collared shirt will be fine. You've got that blue polo you can wear"
Kid: "Okay...Did my new video game come in the mail yet?"
Mom: "No, go outside."
Kid: "ahhhh, Mom!"

Children are the forgotten demographic in the "should we ratify gay marriage or not" conversation. I suggest strongly that all readers here visit the link below and read the OP before we start talking about children merely being told "how it's going to be".

The very first thing we should tell children about gay marriage is that they get to be a part of the conversation BEFORE it is ever ratified, if at all. Wouldn't you agree they get to be part of the conversation Seawytch instead of dictated to after the fact? You know, since marriage is primarily about THEM? http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

 

[Ibentoken]

Liberals are so negative. Always assuming the worst.

I beg to differ. In this thread it seems as tough those with the more liberal views are the more optimistic. It is those who oppose then that insist the worst will happen and are so negative about homosexuals.

As we should be. Queers are hateful nasty creatures. I don't believe they should be mistreated, but children need to know the truth and their souls and minds protected. That's our responsibility as adults. The new age indoctrinated useful idiots need to leave our children alone.

 

[Silhouette]

As we should be. Queers are hateful nasty creatures. I don't believe they should be mistreated, but children need to know the truth and their souls and minds protected. That's our responsibility as adults. The new age indoctrinated useful idiots need to leave our children alone.

Yeah, I don't think that helps the conversation all that much. Calling people who are mentally disturbed "hateful nasty creatures" isn't entirely accurate. I think more to the point is that they seem to be heavily engaged in deep stage denial systems and blind-defense systems that to the onlooker appear [and in fact are] nasty, vitrolic, hypocritical etc. But as the sane onlooker you should be able to recognize the symptoms of the ill and not demonize them. But also not allow them to tell you what 'normal' is and should be enshrined in law much less. For the most part the LGBT cult has leaders who are more aware of what they're doing, where they came from and where they want all this to end up at. But they are engaged in sorcery and fully embrace their behaviors as justified in their own minds; not needing defense, examination or apologies. They move their fold this way and that, sound the bell, blow the whistle and even have internet command posts where they have them go to drink regular batches of Koolaide and get their next set of peer-reinforced walking instructions... If you spend any amount of time looking at the LGBT leadership, and the group as a whole, you cannot help but recognize all the symptoms of a cult. And in fact they are not shy about calling their attempts to rewrite society's values as a "CULTure war".

You are right though. Children MUST be a part of the conversation BEFORE any attempts are made to give an assist to the cult rewriting the moral code of our society, particularly where adopting out vulnerable orphans is concerned..

 

[Ibentoken]

I'm not demonizing them. They are nasty hateful creatures. That's their nature and the nature of every cult.

 

[WinterBorn]

Back to the original question in the OP, children should be told what you are comfortable telling them in an age-appropriate manner. A kid at any age understands Robert and John love each other and are getting married.

Most conversations go thusly:

Mom: "Your uncle Robert and uncle John are getting married next month and we've been invited"
Kid: "Do I have to wear a suit"?
Mom: "No, nice slacks and a collared shirt will be fine. You've got that blue polo you can wear"
Kid: "Okay...Did my new video game come in the mail yet?"
Mom: "No, go outside."
Kid: "ahhhh, Mom!"

Children are the forgotten demographic in the "should we ratify gay marriage or not" conversation. I suggest strongly that all readers here visit the link below and read the OP before we start talking about children merely being told "how it's going to be".

The very first thing we should tell children about gay marriage is that they get to be a part of the conversation BEFORE it is ever ratified, if at all. Wouldn't you agree they get to be part of the conversation Seawytch instead of dictated to after the fact? You know, since marriage is primarily about THEM? http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

The adoption process involves far more than simply showing a marriage license and picking out a child. The agencies vett the prospective parents as thoroughly as possible.

One thing I have no seen you address is the question of straight people doing similar things in parades or public venues. Does that mean they are not allowed to adopt either?

The problem with a single picture is that it does not tell much. I don't know who that guy is and have no idea what the venue is. Much like Mardi Gras or one of the festivals in Key West, people sometimes go wild at certain events. If you do background checks of those who act in a bawdy manner at Mardi Gras, I have no doubt you will find some professionals, parents, members of PTAs when they are at home.

From the single snapshot, we have no way of knowing anything about the man. he could be a volunteer at a hospital, a doctor, a lawyer doing pro-bono work, or any number of things. He could be an upstanding member of his community. Or he could be a kinky deviant. You have no way of knowing for sure.

I simply do not accept that we judge people by a single snapshot of them doing something that is legal.

I also do not accept that we judge the acts of one sexual orientation as seriously dangerous, while we ignore or accept the same acts by another sexual orientation.

The picture you posted did not have any nudity. A parade at Mardi Gras certainly shows more nudity. Plenty of women flash their breasts and their crotches.

 

[Silhouette]

The adoption process involves far more than simply showing a marriage license and picking out a child. The agencies vett the prospective parents as thoroughly as possible.

One thing I have no seen you address is the question of straight people doing similar things in parades or public venues. Does that mean they are not allowed to adopt either?

The problem with a single picture is that it does not tell much. I don't know who that guy is and have no idea what the venue is. Much like Mardi Gras or one of the festivals in Key West, people sometimes go wild at certain events. If you do background checks of those who act in a bawdy manner at Mardi Gras, I have no doubt you will find some professionals, parents, members of PTAs when they are at home.

From the single snapshot, we have no way of knowing anything about the man. he could be a volunteer at a hospital, a doctor, a lawyer doing pro-bono work, or any number of things. He could be an upstanding member of his community. Or he could be a kinky deviant. You have no way of knowing for sure.

I simply do not accept that we judge people by a single snapshot of them doing something that is legal.

I also do not accept that we judge the acts of one sexual orientation as seriously dangerous, while we ignore or accept the same acts by another sexual orientation.

The picture you posted did not have any nudity. A parade at Mardi Gras certainly shows more nudity. Plenty of women flash their breasts and their crotches.

But the difference at Mardi Gras is that it is not a sober expression of cultural values with the hope and anticipation that young children will be in attendance...as a matter of "pride"... When you're ready to stop role-playing the village idiot, let us know.. Mardi Gras is well-advertised, the locations well known year after year, and parents who know better know well in advance not to have young children in attendance of things the next day people wake up with hangovers feeling anything but "proud" about.

Meanwhile, your argument runs like this:

"I'm pretending to not know or understand that in the case of Utah [and other states] the privelege of marriage comes also with the privelege of the ONLY people in that state who can adopt orphans. I'm pretending that if gays force Utah to allow their marriage there, that LGBT cultees won't thereafter begin suing adoption agencies for "discrimination" "because of their sexual orientation"​

...even as they parade down the main streets in Salt Lake City doing exactly what you see in the OP's photo here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

 

[Papageorgio]

Why do we care what a parent is teaching a child?
We want government out of our bedrooms, unless we want free birth control and abortions.
We want government out of our personal lives unless it is others that may be teaching children what we disagree with.

We want schools to teach morality unless we disagree.

The solution is keep government out of morality and leave it to parents, you may not like what they pass on to their children, but they are not your children.

So butt out!


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[Silhouette]

Why do we care what a parent is teaching a child?
We want government out of our bedrooms, unless we want free birth control and abortions.
We want government out of our personal lives unless it is others that may be teaching children what we disagree with.

We want schools to teach morality unless we disagree.

The solution is keep government out of morality and leave it to parents, you may not like what they pass on to their children, but they are not your children.

So butt out!


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

Their children are not their own children either. Children are not possessions that you may do with as you please. We have scores of invasive child protection laws and institutions charged with investigating and prosecuting what society has determined as abusive to children. Not only that, we are all required by federal law to act upon suspicion without a conviction if we even think a child might possibly come to danger of abuse. My last post and that link describes some of those abuses. http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

Here you witness the LGBT cult mentality when it comes to the wellbeing of the most important people involved in the word "marriage". ie, they consider children as a collateral interest, like chattel. An afterthought.

And that is how we and France and several other nations crucially differ on the topic. It is why Russia cut off the US for adopting their orphans; precisely because activist judges here began forcing gay marriage on the states...and ultimately gays adopting orphans. If you don't think Russia or France have a point, visit this link to discover that they do in fact have quite a point about that: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

Paris, France, 2013

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Do you believe that children and their civil rights should be a part of the retooling-marriage discussion?

If not, why not?

Marriage isn't being 'retooled,' it's not being 'altered,' 'changed,' or 'redefined'; same-sex couples are eligible to enter into the same marriage contracts as opposite-sex couples.

And given the fact that children are in no way 'harmed' in a family with same-sex parents, your lies concerning children are transparent, desperate demagoguery.

Clayton - STFU - your quasi intellectual buffoonery isn't fooling anyone - not even your own side -
kindly stop taking up space on my screen THANKS

Take it up with the many Federal judges who have invalidated measures designed to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, in violation of the 14th Amendment:

The right to marry has been historically and remains the
right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together
and form a household. FF 19-20, 34-35. Race and gender
restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender
inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical
core of the institution of marriage. FF 33. Today, gender is not
relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each
other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside,
same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples
in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of
marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an
essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of
equals.

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf

Your issue is with the Federal courts, as my posts merely reflect the facts of law, facts you may not like and reject as a consequence of your willful ignorance and hate, but facts of law nonetheless.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm not demonizing them. They are nasty hateful creatures. That's their nature and the nature of every cult.

And this is why we have a Constitution and it case law, to protect citizens from the likes of you and your desire to codify your ignorance and hate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Greebean, kindly shut up if you are going to write "Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth and misquoting me"

The constitution protects LGBT civil liberties from you, from Iben, from Sil, from Vigilante, and that will never change.

You cannot disprove genetics are a great factor in homosexuality.

You cannot deny that heterosexual adults statistically abused children in multi degree.

You dislike gay marriage: we get that.

Don't marry a gay, hmm?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Have any gay couples allowed their infants and toddlers to fry in the car in the heat of day?

 

[Darkwind]

You shouldn't be teaching kids anything about marriage, that's up to the parents, and not the state

This...