A Simple Question For Those Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If you TRULY want to defend your own beliefs and rights to free exercise of them,
that's why people manage their own membership programs through churches
and other private organizations, including parties. So you retain full say and control
WITHOUT INTERFERENCE BY GOVT, SINCE THESE ARE YOUR BELIEFS.

So YES the couple has inalienable free exercise of religion, beliefs and creed
including the right to marry as a practice and expression by that freedom.
And the best way to DEFEND free exercise of religion and beliefs
is not to compromise it by handing it over to government to regulate for you!

You’re an anarchist!! In your world, you want everyone to be able to do their own thing, but without government there to ensure that those with competing and opposing beliefs would not infringe on others who they disagree with. Can you not see that eventually one side will gain the upper hand and impose those beliefs on the other? You want to accommodate the bigots and theocrats and naively believe that they will allow the gays to live as they wish in peace. However, it is not just the issue of legal marriage. Many do not want any recognition of same sex unions at all. And there are many other areas of potential discrimination in the absence of government supervision- housing, employment, and public accommodation to name a few. Hell, some of these people don’t even think that gay folks should be allowed to live. You are advocating social Darwinism.

 

[rightwinger]

To me, Jack is the key

Unless he has given up his parental rights, He gets to decide what happens to the children

NO! Here is the key: What is in the best interest of the child! PERIOD, END OF DEBATE!

No one OWNS the children!

Yes they do

The biological parents own the children and get to decide what is best for them

In this case, the non-custodial parent would be next in line to decide what is best for the child BEFORE a new spouse would

 

[Bob Blaylock]

1) The citizen do not have the right to consent or not consent on a matter of constitutional rights.


2 )I have documented the folly of civil unions many times. It is a cruel hoax to portray it as equal to marriage, just like claiming that being allowed to ride in the back of the bus was equal to riding in front because you could still get to where you were going.

It is certainly at least equally a cruel and destructive hoax to declare that a sick homosexual mockery of a marriage is in any way comparable to a genuine marriage, and especially to allow children to be adopted into that mockery, and told that it is in any way comparable to giving them a real family with a father and a mother.

But then, you will not agree, because you are on the side that overtly seeks to abuse and harm children, in order to promote your evil homosexual-and-worse agenda.

Luke 11:11-12

11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?​

 

[Pop23]

So organize marriages and benefits collectively through one's own choice of
churches, parties or other organizations where members agree on the same
policies and terms. Don't do this through "govt" which has to represent
ALL OTHER PEOPLE OF ALL OTHER BELIEFS.

More of the same nonsense. The government out of marriage meme intended to avoid the marriage issue and that nobody has ever been able to explain how it would actually work in the real world . Just who would support this “throw the baby out with the bath water” extreme and unnecessary “solution”? Certainly not the millions of married couples who benefit from legal marriage

So what is a Government sanctioned marriage?

What qualifies other then two signatures on a 10 cent piece of paper?

 

[rightwinger]

So organize marriages and benefits collectively through one's own choice of
churches, parties or other organizations where members agree on the same
policies and terms. Don't do this through "govt" which has to represent
ALL OTHER PEOPLE OF ALL OTHER BELIEFS.

More of the same nonsense. The government out of marriage meme intended to avoid the marriage issue and that nobody has ever been able to explain how it would actually work in the real world . Just who would support this “throw the baby out with the bath water” extreme and unnecessary “solution”? Certainly not the millions of married couples who benefit from legal marriage

So what is a Government sanctioned marriage?

What qualifies other then two signatures on a 10 cent piece of paper?

Makes it legal and binding

 

[Pop23]

So organize marriages and benefits collectively through one's own choice of
churches, parties or other organizations where members agree on the same
policies and terms. Don't do this through "govt" which has to represent
ALL OTHER PEOPLE OF ALL OTHER BELIEFS.

More of the same nonsense. The government out of marriage meme intended to avoid the marriage issue and that nobody has ever been able to explain how it would actually work in the real world . Just who would support this “throw the baby out with the bath water” extreme and unnecessary “solution”? Certainly not the millions of married couples who benefit from legal marriage

So what is a Government sanctioned marriage?

What qualifies other then two signatures on a 10 cent piece of paper?

Makes it legal and binding

That's typically what all legal document do. But what does it make legal and binding?

 

[rightwinger]

So organize marriages and benefits collectively through one's own choice of
churches, parties or other organizations where members agree on the same
policies and terms. Don't do this through "govt" which has to represent
ALL OTHER PEOPLE OF ALL OTHER BELIEFS.

More of the same nonsense. The government out of marriage meme intended to avoid the marriage issue and that nobody has ever been able to explain how it would actually work in the real world . Just who would support this “throw the baby out with the bath water” extreme and unnecessary “solution”? Certainly not the millions of married couples who benefit from legal marriage

So what is a Government sanctioned marriage?

What qualifies other then two signatures on a 10 cent piece of paper?

Makes it legal and binding

That's typically what all legal document do. But what does it make legal and binding?

The relationship
They cannot legally enter into another legal relationship unless legally dissolved

It also provides all the legal protections of a marriage including financial, tax, medical, rights to joint property

 

[Pop23]

So organize marriages and benefits collectively through one's own choice of
churches, parties or other organizations where members agree on the same
policies and terms. Don't do this through "govt" which has to represent
ALL OTHER PEOPLE OF ALL OTHER BELIEFS.

More of the same nonsense. The government out of marriage meme intended to avoid the marriage issue and that nobody has ever been able to explain how it would actually work in the real world . Just who would support this “throw the baby out with the bath water” extreme and unnecessary “solution”? Certainly not the millions of married couples who benefit from legal marriage

So what is a Government sanctioned marriage?

What qualifies other then two signatures on a 10 cent piece of paper?

Makes it legal and binding

That's typically what all legal document do. But what does it make legal and binding?

The relationship
They cannot legally enter into another legal relationship unless legally dissolved

It also provides all the legal protections of a marriage including financial, tax, medical, rights to joint property

Then no one should be excluded from these protections? If so, why?

There must be a reason, Right?

 

[Rambunctious]

I have a simple question for those who oppose same sex marriage on the grounds that it is detrimental to children - which will come at the end of this post. But first allow me to present a senerio that is quite common.

The setting: A time and place where same sex marriage is not possible and only married couples can adopt .

The people: Kathy is a 29 year old divorced woman with two year old twins- a boy named Brandon and a girl named Britany . After the birth of the children, the husband , Jack, became abusive and angry which resulted in Kathy filing for divorce. Jack, over the last year and a half has had minimal contact with the children by his choice, and has had to be hauled into court several time for not paying child support

Kathy has always felt that she was more attracted to women than men but has supppressed those feelings because of taboos and social pressures, and wanting to avoid disapproval of friends and family . However, public opinion and social norms are changing and she is ready to embrace her feelings, be who she really is, and come out as a Lesbian.

Soon after her divorce, Kathy meets Angela, a Lesbian and they hit it off. The children like her and she is crazy about them. Within 6 months Angela moves in with Kathy in the home that Kathy owns exclusivly as a result of the divorce settlement. In time, it becomes clear that the children are bonding with Angela and she is very involved witgh them

A few years go by, the children are now in school and doing well. They are clearly well adjusted and have many friends. Then the unthinkable happens. Kathy is killed in an auto accident. Social Services at the hospital notifies Child Protective Services (CPS) that there are children living with an unrelated person who is not their legal guardian and investigates. The first thing that they do is to contact the father who has moved some distance away and is with another woman. They find out that the woman does not want kids and the father's interest is tempid at best. They consider charging him with abandonment but determine that placing the children with him might be putting them at risk of abuse or neglect because of the attiudes of the father and his girlfriend.

The next step is for CPS is to explore relatives on both sided of the family who might be able and willing to take the children but Kathy had not been close with any of them some austricized her for living with a woman. None are interested in taking in the children.

Meanwhile, Angela and the children are understanably devistated by the loss of Kathy . Compounding the grief is childrens fear that they will be taken away from Angela and sent off to live with people who they don't know, and away from their friends and school. And of course Angela is fearful of loosing the children.

To be sure CPS could reccomend to the court that Angela be given custody but there is no guarantee that they will, or that the court would follow that reccomendation. And, if a relitive later came forward and asked to be considered as the guardian, or if the father objected, Angela could loose custody at any time. It is also plausable that CPS would reccomend placement into foster care. Remember, Angela has no rights!!

Now one might say that children have rights, and these children are old enough- now 7- so express their wishes. However, that does not mean that their rights and wishes will be respected by the legal system and the adults who have power over them. The court might order a best interest analysis which would include a lengthy process of evaluating the degree of bonding between Angela and the children . But even if resolved in their favor, they will have already suffered unnecessary trauma and will bear those scars for the rest of their lives.

Of course, all of this could have been avoided if Kathy and Angela could have been married so that Angela could adopt the children as a second parent.

So now, my question is : Can anyone say that the best interest of Brandon and Britany were served in a system where Kathy and Angela COULD NOT GET MARRIED? Yes or No and why

Will you please take your fag issues and shove em. The world does not revolve around your sexual predilections. Sickening.

Single minded morons with a sick sexual fetish should not call others stupid.

 

[Silhouette]

The relationship
They cannot legally enter into another legal relationship unless legally dissolved

It also provides all the legal protections of a marriage including financial, tax, medical, rights to joint property

And custody of children. Thank you. Yes. Marriage is a contract without a fraction of doubt; involving anticipated children (whether or not they arrive) without a fraction of a doubt. And, so-called "gay marriage" is a contract that banishes any children involved from either a mother or father for life. That is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine on children in actual or implicit contract with adults where a necessity is deprived.

Single parents posses NO contract that banishes children in this way. In fact they still offer hope, particularly with the enticement of state benefits geared precisely to provide these vital fathers to boys and mothers to girls.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I have a simple question for those who oppose same sex marriage on the grounds that it is detrimental to children - which will come at the end of this post. But first allow me to present a senerio that is quite common.

The setting: A time and place where same sex marriage is not possible and only married couples can adopt .

The people: Kathy is a 29 year old divorced woman with two year old twins- a boy named Brandon and a girl named Britany . After the birth of the children, the husband , Jack, became abusive and angry which resulted in Kathy filing for divorce. Jack, over the last year and a half has had minimal contact with the children by his choice, and has had to be hauled into court several time for not paying child support

Kathy has always felt that she was more attracted to women than men but has supppressed those feelings because of taboos and social pressures, and wanting to avoid disapproval of friends and family . However, public opinion and social norms are changing and she is ready to embrace her feelings, be who she really is, and come out as a Lesbian.

Soon after her divorce, Kathy meets Angela, a Lesbian and they hit it off. The children like her and she is crazy about them. Within 6 months Angela moves in with Kathy in the home that Kathy owns exclusivly as a result of the divorce settlement. In time, it becomes clear that the children are bonding with Angela and she is very involved witgh them

A few years go by, the children are now in school and doing well. They are clearly well adjusted and have many friends. Then the unthinkable happens. Kathy is killed in an auto accident. Social Services at the hospital notifies Child Protective Services (CPS) that there are children living with an unrelated person who is not their legal guardian and investigates. The first thing that they do is to contact the father who has moved some distance away and is with another woman. They find out that the woman does not want kids and the father's interest is tempid at best. They consider charging him with abandonment but determine that placing the children with him might be putting them at risk of abuse or neglect because of the attiudes of the father and his girlfriend.

The next step is for CPS is to explore relatives on both sided of the family who might be able and willing to take the children but Kathy had not been close with any of them some austricized her for living with a woman. None are interested in taking in the children.

Meanwhile, Angela and the children are understanably devistated by the loss of Kathy . Compounding the grief is childrens fear that they will be taken away from Angela and sent off to live with people who they don't know, and away from their friends and school. And of course Angela is fearful of loosing the children.

To be sure CPS could reccomend to the court that Angela be given custody but there is no guarantee that they will, or that the court would follow that reccomendation. And, if a relitive later came forward and asked to be considered as the guardian, or if the father objected, Angela could loose custody at any time. It is also plausable that CPS would reccomend placement into foster care. Remember, Angela has no rights!!

Now one might say that children have rights, and these children are old enough- now 7- so express their wishes. However, that does not mean that their rights and wishes will be respected by the legal system and the adults who have power over them. The court might order a best interest analysis which would include a lengthy process of evaluating the degree of bonding between Angela and the children . But even if resolved in their favor, they will have already suffered unnecessary trauma and will bear those scars for the rest of their lives.

Of course, all of this could have been avoided if Kathy and Angela could have been married so that Angela could adopt the children as a second parent.

So now, my question is : Can anyone say that the best interest of Brandon and Britany were served in a system where Kathy and Angela COULD NOT GET MARRIED? Yes or No and why

Will you please take your fag issues and shove em. The world does not revolve around your sexual predilections. Sickening.

Single minded morons with a sick sexual fetish should not call others stupid.

"Single minded""

The fact that you presume to know something about my sexuality based on my politics is more than enough to confirm my assessment of you,

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

To me, Jack is the key

Unless he has given up his parental rights, He gets to decide what happens to the children

NO! Here is the key: What is in the best interest of the child! PERIOD, END OF DEBATE!

No one OWNS the children!

Yes they do

The biological parents own the children and get to decide what is best for them

In this case, the non-custodial parent would be next in line to decide what is best for the child BEFORE a new spouse would

They have parental rights. You can't own a human being , not even when they are your offspring. Ownership of a human being was over with the civil war.

That being said, parental right- like all rights are not absolute . You must exercise those rights responsibly and within certain limits.

In this case, the father was a jackass who could care less about the children. He refused to take them in after their mothers death, was negligent in paying support, and did not visit with them much. The right decision would be to terminate his parental rights if he does not surrender them voluntarily in favor of Ange so that she can adopt them. Had the women been married, and this been done before the mothers death, the children would not be in danger of becoming wards of the state.

While they may be allowed to stay with Angela, a biased CPS official might not make that recommendation, and/ or a bigoted judge might not make the right decision.

 

[rightwinger]

The relationship
They cannot legally enter into another legal relationship unless legally dissolved

It also provides all the legal protections of a marriage including financial, tax, medical, rights to joint property

And custody of children. Thank you. Yes. Marriage is a contract without a fraction of doubt; involving anticipated children (whether or not they arrive) without a fraction of a doubt. And, so-called "gay marriage" is a contract that banishes any children involved from either a mother or father for life. That is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine on children in actual or implicit contract with adults where a necessity is deprived.

Single parents posses NO contract that banishes children in this way. In fact they still offer hope, particularly with the enticement of state benefits geared precisely to provide these vital fathers to boys and mothers to girls.

Still trying to sell that failed argument?

 

[rightwinger]

To me, Jack is the key

Unless he has given up his parental rights, He gets to decide what happens to the children

NO! Here is the key: What is in the best interest of the child! PERIOD, END OF DEBATE!

No one OWNS the children!

Yes they do

The biological parents own the children and get to decide what is best for them

In this case, the non-custodial parent would be next in line to decide what is best for the child BEFORE a new spouse would

They have parental rights. You can't own a human being , not even when they are your offspring. Ownership of a human being was over with the civil war.

That being said, parental right- like all rights are not absolute . You must exercise those rights responsibly and within certain limits.

In this case, the father was a jackass who could care less about the children. He refused to take them in after their mothers death, was negligent in paying support, and did not visit with them much. The right decision would be to terminate his parental rights if he does not surrender them voluntarily in favor of Ange so that she can adopt them. Had the women been married, and this been done before the mothers death, the children would not be in danger of becoming wards of the state.

While they may be allowed to stay with Angela, a biased CPS official might not make that recommendation, and/ or a bigoted judge might not make the right decision.

Until such time as his parental rights are surrendered or taken away, he has control over his children

The spouse in a second marriage would not

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

To me, Jack is the key

Unless he has given up his parental rights, He gets to decide what happens to the children

NO! Here is the key: What is in the best interest of the child! PERIOD, END OF DEBATE!

No one OWNS the children!

Yes they do

The biological parents own the children and get to decide what is best for them

In this case, the non-custodial parent would be next in line to decide what is best for the child BEFORE a new spouse would

They have parental rights. You can't own a human being , not even when they are your offspring. Ownership of a human being was over with the civil war.

That being said, parental right- like all rights are not absolute . You must exercise those rights responsibly and within certain limits.

In this case, the father was a jackass who could care less about the children. He refused to take them in after their mothers death, was negligent in paying support, and did not visit with them much. The right decision would be to terminate his parental rights if he does not surrender them voluntarily in favor of Ange so that she can adopt them. Had the women been married, and this been done before the mothers death, the children would not be in danger of becoming wards of the state.

While they may be allowed to stay with Angela, a biased CPS official might not make that recommendation, and/ or a bigoted judge might not make the right decision.

Until such time as his parental rights are surrendered or taken away, he has control over his children

The spouse in a second marriage would not

OK that's what I said

 

[Syriusly]

Any gay marriage contract carries with it upon its face that any children involved will be banished from either a mother or father for life. t.

As is the case with virtually all of Silhouettes posts - here entire sentence is a figment of her imagination.

 

[Syriusly]

I have a simple question for those who oppose same sex marriage on the grounds that it is detrimental to children - which will come at the end of this post. But first allow me to present a senerio that is quite common.

The setting: A time and place where same sex marriage is not possible and only married couples can adopt .

The people: Kathy is a 29 year old divorced woman with two year old twins- a boy named Brandon and a girl named Britany . After the birth of the children, the husband , Jack, became abusive and angry which resulted in Kathy filing for divorce. Jack, over the last year and a half has had minimal contact with the children by his choice, and has had to be hauled into court several time for not paying child support

Kathy has always felt that she was more attracted to women than men but has supppressed those feelings because of taboos and social pressures, and wanting to avoid disapproval of friends and family . However, public opinion and social norms are changing and she is ready to embrace her feelings, be who she really is, and come out as a Lesbian.

Soon after her divorce, Kathy meets Angela, a Lesbian and they hit it off. The children like her and she is crazy about them. Within 6 months Angela moves in with Kathy in the home that Kathy owns exclusivly as a result of the divorce settlement. In time, it becomes clear that the children are bonding with Angela and she is very involved witgh them

A few years go by, the children are now in school and doing well. They are clearly well adjusted and have many friends. Then the unthinkable happens. Kathy is killed in an auto accident. Social Services at the hospital notifies Child Protective Services (CPS) that there are children living with an unrelated person who is not their legal guardian and investigates. The first thing that they do is to contact the father who has moved some distance away and is with another woman. They find out that the woman does not want kids and the father's interest is tempid at best. They consider charging him with abandonment but determine that placing the children with him might be putting them at risk of abuse or neglect because of the attiudes of the father and his girlfriend.

The next step is for CPS is to explore relatives on both sided of the family who might be able and willing to take the children but Kathy had not been close with any of them some austricized her for living with a woman. None are interested in taking in the children.

Meanwhile, Angela and the children are understanably devistated by the loss of Kathy . Compounding the grief is childrens fear that they will be taken away from Angela and sent off to live with people who they don't know, and away from their friends and school. And of course Angela is fearful of loosing the children.

To be sure CPS could reccomend to the court that Angela be given custody but there is no guarantee that they will, or that the court would follow that reccomendation. And, if a relitive later came forward and asked to be considered as the guardian, or if the father objected, Angela could loose custody at any time. It is also plausable that CPS would reccomend placement into foster care. Remember, Angela has no rights!!

Now one might say that children have rights, and these children are old enough- now 7- so express their wishes. However, that does not mean that their rights and wishes will be respected by the legal system and the adults who have power over them. The court might order a best interest analysis which would include a lengthy process of evaluating the degree of bonding between Angela and the children . But even if resolved in their favor, they will have already suffered unnecessary trauma and will bear those scars for the rest of their lives.

Of course, all of this could have been avoided if Kathy and Angela could have been married so that Angela could adopt the children as a second parent.

So now, my question is : Can anyone say that the best interest of Brandon and Britany were served in a system where Kathy and Angela COULD NOT GET MARRIED? Yes or No and why

Will you please take your fag issues and shove em.

Poor little snowflake. When confronted with a question too complicated for your little mind- you just lash out.

LOL

 

[Syriusly]

Will you please take your fag issues and shove em. The world does not revolve around your sexual predilections. Sickening.

You have to understand that the OP has an ulterior motive for starting this thread.

Coming from the author of scores of threads attacking gays and gay marriage- lol

 

[Syriusly]

Since we KNOW there are conflicts in beliefs, this is why it may be better
to set up Benefits and terms of marriage by Party, to manage collectively
for Members of the same beliefs. And keep the government's authority reserved for just NEUTRAL financial and legal partnerships, which do not specify social relationships.
(Again, "civil unions and domestic partnerships" could be agreed upon as neutral,
while keeping terms of "marriage" and "social benefits" separate by party membership
to prevent people from imposing or infringing on each other's conflicting beliefs.)

The govt could then enforce agreed contracts on
guardianship, custody, estates, medical directives, and other legal arrangements
while remaining VOID of references to marriage or social beliefs where people don't agree.

More gibberish. We have been all through this before. You are advocation for parallel systems and a neutral government to somehow accommodate everyone, Beyond absurd!

You actually read that stuff?

I have tried a few times- and actually challenged her to right a succinct post.

She can't- I won't bother to try to decode her posts.

 

[Syriusly]

The relationship
They cannot legally enter into another legal relationship unless legally dissolved

It also provides all the legal protections of a marriage including financial, tax, medical, rights to joint property

And custody of children. Thank you. Yes. Marriage is a contract without a fraction of doubt; involving anticipated children (whether or not they arrive) without a fraction of a doubt.

And by 'without a fraction of a doubt' that really means 'without a fraction of truth'