A Solution to the Indiana Law Protecting Religion (That 82% Support BTW)

[Silhouette]

Yep, that's it. I'm trying to hide my homophobia. I'm so homophobic, I constantly go on rampages about how opposition to gay marriage is complete and utter bullshit.

Except when people object because of the welfare of future generations of kids (and therefore the core of society itself rotting from within) by institutionalizing fatherless sons and motherless daughters "as married".

Some people do have reasonable objections to a BRAND NEW SOCIAL EXPERIMENT of which 99% of the LGBT people posting here didn't have to undergo themselves (they had a mother and father present in their lives) which involves minor children and their psychological wellbeing:

A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[SwimExpert]

Yep, that's it. I'm trying to hide my homophobia. I'm so homophobic, I constantly go on rampages about how opposition to gay marriage is complete and utter bullshit.

Except when people object because of the welfare of future generations of kids by institutionalizing fatherless sons and motherless daughters "as married".

Some people do have reasonable objections to a BRAND NEW SOCIAL EXPERIMENT of which 99% of the LGBT people posting here didn't have to undergo themselves (they had a mother and father present in their lives) which involves minor children and their psychological wellbeing:

A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

See Joe, that's what a homophobe really looks like.

 

[Silhouette]

See Joe, that's what a homophobe really looks like.

Keep using your little reverse-bullying words. See how far it gets you pal. Their teeth have become dull in recent months, or haven't you notice?

Meanwhile, the sane people of the world don't want to institutionalize fatherless sons and motherless daughters to provide ??????????????? as a base for our future society and the society of our grandkids and their grandkids.

Think about that trend 100 years hence and what type of a society we will have. Sane people object to that postulation. You are not sane by definition therefore.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A solution to the Indiana law that says Christians can refuse to enable a 'gay marriage' is found in understanding concepts #1 & #2 below. I wrote this post in response to a comment "ChrisL" made.

Any service having to do conspicously or overtly for a "gay marriage" may be able to be objected to by Christians. !

Hmmmm have you ever read the Constitution?

What makes you think that Christians are allowed special exemptions under the Constitution?

What part of the First Amendment are you having trouble with? The reading of it?

Lets look at it again:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Nothing there about special exemptions for Christians that Silhouette suggested.

Well, other than their exercise of religion being exempt from prohibitive laws.

But we don't want to split hairs.

 

[Skylar]

Yep, that's it. I'm trying to hide my homophobia. I'm so homophobic, I constantly go on rampages about how opposition to gay marriage is complete and utter bullshit.

Except when people object because of the welfare of future generations of kids (and therefore the core of society itself rotting from within) by institutionalizing fatherless sons and motherless daughters "as married".

So if you deny marriage to say, a lesbian couple....does that mean their children magically have oppose sex parents?

Nope. Your 'solution' (denying same same marriage) has nothing to do with your proposed 'problem' (the gender of parents).

Some people do have reasonable objections to a BRAND NEW SOCIAL EXPERIMENT of which 99% of the LGBT people posting here didn't have to undergo themselves (they had a mother and father present in their lives) which involves minor children and their psychological wellbeing:

Blithering nonsense. Gays and lesbians have been having kids for decades. And none of the chicken little batshit you made up happened.

Worse, you don't give a fiddler's fuck about the children of same sex couples. You already know that denying their parents marriage causes these children trenemdous and immediate legal harm. The Supreme Court has gone into elaborate detail on how it humiliates these children, damages their understanding of family, makes healthcare more expensive and robs them of benefits. This is incontrovertible.

So what benefits are provided to these children by denying marriage to their same sex parents?

........you have no answer. As there are no such benefits.

You know your proposal harms children. You know it doesn't benefit them. And yet you want to do it to them anyway......because it also hurts gays. So much for your claims about your conern for the 'welfare of children'. Children are nothing but a horse for you to ride. If you can't use them to hurt gays, they're irrelevant to you.

 

[Skylar]

Meanwhile, the sane people of the world don't want to institutionalize fatherless sons and motherless daughters to provide ??????????????? as a base for our future society and the society of our grandkids and their grandkids.

You know that banning marriage for same sex parents hurts their children. Severely and immediately. And you know that denying marriage to same sex couples doesn't benefit their children.

No sane person would demand we hurt these kids for no benefit to them.

You do.

 

[Silhouette]

You know that banning marriage for same sex parents hurts their children. Severely and immediately. And you know that denying marriage to same sex couples doesn't benefit their children..

Hmmm...I know two lesbians or two gay men "having children" is already hurting them severely and immediately regardless of whether or not their "parents" are "married". A child cannot call two women or two men "mom and dad". So severe injury is immediate and proximate, you are right.

But since we are a nation of freedoms, each state instead of acting totalitiarian, chooses to incentivize that best formative environment for kids which is and always has been (even for you Skylar) "mom and dad". There is fiscal injury, which is minimal. And there is psychological injury, which is maximum: A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum And an injury to society as a whole over time whose size cannot even be fathomed, it is so immense.... 1. For removing democratic rule on this quesiton which by its very physical nature stands to alter society so fundamentally and deeply and 2. For using kids as lab rats, the damage known and unknown to be everyone's inheritance from this day forward.

So immediately and in the long run, institutionalizing "gay marriage" is a very very VERY BAD idea..for children here and now...and into time unforeseen..

 

[Skylar]

You know that banning marriage for same sex parents hurts their children. Severely and immediately. And you know that denying marriage to same sex couples doesn't benefit their children..

Hmmm...I know two lesbians or two gay men "having children" is already hurting them severely and immediately regardless of whether or not their "parents" are "married". A child cannot call two women or two men "mom and dad". So severe injury is immediate and proximate, you are right.

You 'know' no such thing. You make the claim. But you can't back it up.

Worse, denying marriage to said lesbians or gay men doesn't change the gender make up of the parents of their children. Its still same sex. Denying marriage to same sex parents has no effect on what you claim to be concerned about.

And you know that.

Denying marriage to same sex couples hurts their children.

And you know that.

Denying marriage to same sex couples doesn't benefit their children.

And you know that.

No sane person would knowingly implement a policy that they know hurts kids and doesn't benefit them. You do.

 

[SwimExpert]

See Joe, that's what a homophobe really looks like.

Keep using your little reverse-bullying words. See how far it gets you pal. Their teeth have become dull in recent months, or haven't you notice?

Meanwhile, the sane people of the world don't want to institutionalize fatherless sons and motherless daughters to provide ??????????????? as a base for our future society and the society of our grandkids and their grandkids.

Think about that trend 100 years hence and what type of a society we will have. Sane people object to that postulation. You are not sane by definition therefore.

How's' that "I'm not going to talk about gay issues anymore" working out for you? Just couldn't seem to find a reason to get out of bed in the morning without your daily dose of gay bashing, could you?

 

[Syriusly]

A solution to the Indiana law that says Christians can refuse to enable a 'gay marriage' is found in understanding concepts #1 & #2 below. I wrote this post in response to a comment "ChrisL" made.

Any service having to do conspicously or overtly for a "gay marriage" may be able to be objected to by Christians. !

Hmmmm have you ever read the Constitution?

What makes you think that Christians are allowed special exemptions under the Constitution?

What part of the First Amendment are you having trouble with? The reading of it?

Lets look at it again:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Nothing there about special exemptions for Christians that Silhouette suggested.

Well, other than their exercise of religion being exempt from prohibitive laws.

But we don't want to split hairs.

Silhouette wants Christians- and Christians owners of business's to be specifically exempt from laws such as Public Accommodation laws.

Nothing in the First Amendment about Christians getting a pass when every Jew, Muslim and Atheist has to comply.

 

[Syriusly]

You know that banning marriage for same sex parents hurts their children. Severely and immediately. And you know that denying marriage to same sex couples doesn't benefit their children..

Hmmm...I know two lesbians or two gay men "having children" is already hurting them severely and immediately regardless

How? There are millions and millions of children being raised by 1 mom or 1 dad- with no other parent- are all of those children suffering 'severely and immediately'? Or only when they have 2 mom's or 2 dad's? Or just when Mom is gay?

And is there any Supreme Court Justice that has mentioned such an injury as Justice Kennedy has specifically mentioned the severe and immediate injury to children caused by denying them married parents?

 

[Syriusly]

See Joe, that's what a homophobe really looks like.

Think about that trend 100 years hence and what type of a society we will have. Sane people object to that postulation. You are not sane by definition therefore.

We actually are- we want a world where bigots like yourself are looked at in as much disdain as those who preached hatred towards Blacks or Jews or Catholics or Chinese.

Where children are safe from your message of hate.

 

[Silhouette]

You know that banning marriage for same sex parents hurts their children. Severely and immediately. And you know that denying marriage to same sex couples doesn't benefit their children..

Hmmm...I know two lesbians or two gay men "having children" is already hurting them severely and immediately regardless

How? There are millions and millions of children being raised by 1 mom or 1 dad- with no other parent- are all of those children suffering 'severely and immediately'? Or only when they have 2 mom's or 2 dad's? Or just when Mom is gay?

And is there any Supreme Court Justice that has mentioned such an injury as Justice Kennedy has specifically mentioned the severe and immediate injury to children caused by denying them married parents?

Oh, you left part of my quote out and then pretended that I didn't write it to pre-emptively answer you question. Here, let's view all of this this time so you can't pretend you don't know the answer to your own "question"...

"Hmmm...I know two lesbians or two gay men "having children" is already hurting them severely and immediately regardless of whether or not their "parents" are "married". A child cannot call two women or two men "mom and dad". So severe injury is immediate and proximate, you are right.

But since we are a nation of freedoms, each state instead of acting totalitiarian, chooses to incentivize that best formative environment for kids which is and always has been (even for you Skylar) "mom and dad". There is fiscal injury, which is minimal. And there is psychological injury, which is maximum: A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum And an injury to society as a whole over time whose size cannot even be fathomed, it is so immense.... 1. For removing democratic rule on this quesiton which by its very physical nature stands to alter society so fundamentally and deeply and 2. For using kids as lab rats, the damage known and unknown to be everyone's inheritance from this day forward.

So immediately and in the long run, institutionalizing "gay marriage" is a very very VERY BAD idea..for children here and now...and into time unforeseen.."

 

[Skylar]

Oh, you left part of my quote out and then pretended that I didn't write it to pre-emptively answer you question. Here, let's view all of this this time so you can't pretend you don't know the answer to your own "question"...

"Hmmm...I know two lesbians or two gay men "having children" is already hurting them severely and immediately regardless of whether or not their "parents" are "married". A child cannot call two women or two men "mom and dad". So severe injury is immediate and proximate, you are right.

First off, says you. And you don't know what you're talking about. Study after study has shown that these kids are fine. You simply ignore any source, from any country, any university, any expert, using any methodology if you don't agree with their findings. And that's just the confirmation bias fallacy.

And we're not going to harm children just because YOU choose to be willfully ignorant.

Second, denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't fix any of what you've imagined. Making it completely irrelevant.

But since we are a nation of freedoms, each state instead of acting totalitiarian, chooses to incentivize that best formative environment for kids which is and always has been (even for you Skylar) "mom and dad". There is fiscal injury, which is minimal.

The fiscal injury is quite severe. As the the courts have gone into elaborate detail:

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 same-sex 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 spouseand parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

Humiliation, difficulty int understanding the closeness of their own families, increase healthcare costs, denial of benefits and damage to family security isn't 'minor'. Its overlapping and severe. And worse for you, court recognized. None of the bullshit you've imagined is.

So denying marriage hurts these children. Which you know. And denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't benefit these children. Which you know.

How then can you possibly claim to care about these kids when your proposal does nothing but hurt them? And why would we enact your policy when it does nothing to benefit these kids but only hurts them?

You've never once had a good reason.

 

[JoeB131]

You're damn right. It's called freedom. It applies when people say things you agree with, and it also applies when people say things you don't agree with. Gay people deserve the right to get married just like the rest of us and live their lives happily. And bigots deserve the right to be douche bags and refuse them service, and be driven out of business when the rest of the public refuses to buy from them.

Freedom for some is freedom for none.

Horseshit. Business aren't individuals and they don't have freedom. They are governed by commercial law. And frankly, that's what it should be. We need protections for consumers.

This is a reasonable consumer protection.

 

[JoeB131]

See Joe, that's what a homophobe really looks like.

Again, I don't make distinctions between ones who are honest in their homophobia and ones who try to wrap up their homophobia in vestments and call it "Freedom of religion".

In fact, quite honestly, I find Sil refreshing. He hates gays and he thinks butt-sex is icky. He's going to have a meltdown when SCOTUS legalizes it in a couple of months.

 

[Silhouette]

Butt sex killed my friend so yeah, I think it's icky. You bet. He was "gay" because he was molested as a boy by a gay man and habituated to gay sex by mental wounds. Like so many other gays and AIDS-terrorists.

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Butt sex killed my friend so yeah, I think it's icky. You bet. He was "gay" because he was molested as a boy by a gay man and habituated to gay sex by mental wounds. Like so many other gays and AIDS-terrorists.

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

Thank you. The dirty little secret is that homosexuality is a perversion of human sexuality which is imprinted upon infants and toddlers by sex play committed upon them by people of the same gender.

 

[JoeB131]

Butt sex killed my friend so yeah, I think it's icky. You bet. He was "gay" because he was molested as a boy by a gay man and habituated to gay sex by mental wounds. Like so many other gays and AIDS-terrorists.

Talking about your imaginary friend again?

 

[JoeB131]

Thank you. The dirty little secret is that homosexuality is a perversion of human sexuality which is imprinted upon infants and toddlers by sex play committed upon them by people of the same gender.

Uh, huh. Well, I know a few lesbians who became lesbians because they were molested by men as children...

But, no, there's no studies to back up your claims.