Alabama SC orders judges to stop issuing homosexuals "marriage" licenses.

[Silhouette]

Yes but.... all other things being equal, a mother/father home is the superior home to any other structure. So it's why most states in the Union recognize the meaning of marriage and refuse to redact it to accomodate a new social experiment that deprives by its very structure, the best formative environment for kids.

There's no predicting what will happen once the base structure is in place. What is predictable is that a son needs a father and a daughter needs a mother.

Not true since it appeals to ignorance of Spartan policies public; which must be considered superior for the common Defense and general welfare of the United States.

And that don't mean crap when it comes to forcing kids to be lab rats in the brand new experiment of fatherless sons and motherless daughters "as marriage".

Kids prevail/adults fail in any contest where the two are grappling for rights. Go to a family court near you and see for yourself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Horse puckey, Sil.

You and Keys weirdo and Saint Mike and the rest of the gastric penguins have failed every time in explaining why we should go back to the old, no longer traditional, way.

We won't.

No JAKE you won't go back unless you find that it in some way benefits the "right" that you despise so blindly, and in someway becomes detrimental to the left.

The 'right' you believe in does not exist, James. I am no more left than are you, and I am far more centered in mainstream America than you and Keyes and Sil and saint mike can ever be. Marriage equality is now the traditional marriage pattern and will be for a long, long time.

Sil's insistence on only her style of marriage is becoming cultic. The nice thing is marriage equality allows her cult to practice it as they wish; no one will make them marry who they don't wish, an admirable practice that, if they had the the power, would not grant to others.

 

[James Everett]

Horse puckey, Sil.

You and Keys weirdo and Saint Mike and the rest of the gastric penguins have failed every time in explaining why we should go back to the old, no longer traditional, way.

We won't.

No JAKE you won't go back unless you find that it in some way benefits the "right" that you despise so blindly, and in someway becomes detrimental to the left.

The 'right' you believe in does not exist, James. I am no more left than are you, and I am far more centered in mainstream America than you and Keyes and Sil and saint mike can ever be. Marriage equality is now the traditional marriage pattern and will be for a long, long time.

Sil's insistence on only her style of marriage is becoming cultic. The nice thing is marriage equality allows her cult to practice it as they wish; no one will make them marry who they don't wish, an admirable practice that, if they had the the power, would not grant to others.

Well, JAKE, I am please to see that you are mainstream, and that you never refer to anyone who you oppose as "right". If I cared enough, I would scroll through your posts to see if you ever referred to anyone as"right".
Concerning marriage equality, I believe that I have demonstrated how it already is applied equally without redefining it.
Now I wish to ask you since you support marriage equality.....
Does this equality that you support apply to polygamists, and the incestuous?
I assume that you do support incest and polygamy in this equality?

 

[danielpalos]

Yes but.... all other things being equal, a mother/father home is the superior home to any other structure. So it's why most states in the Union recognize the meaning of marriage and refuse to redact it to accomodate a new social experiment that deprives by its very structure, the best formative environment for kids.

There's no predicting what will happen once the base structure is in place. What is predictable is that a son needs a father and a daughter needs a mother.

Not true since it appeals to ignorance of Spartan policies public; which must be considered superior for the common Defense and general welfare of the United States.

And that don't mean crap when it comes to forcing kids to be lab rats in the brand new experiment of fatherless sons and motherless daughters "as marriage".

Kids prevail/adults fail in any contest where the two are grappling for rights. Go to a family court near you and see for yourself.

Not sure what you are referring to; freedom of association and contract is a natural right.

Should kids sign consent forms to be raised by their parents?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes but.... all other things being equal, a mother/father home is the superior home to any other structure. So it's why most states in the Union recognize the meaning of marriage and refuse to redact it to accomodate a new social experiment that deprives by its very structure, the best formative environment for kids.

There's no predicting what will happen once the base structure is in place. What is predictable is that a son needs a father and a daughter needs a mother.

Not true since it appeals to ignorance of Spartan policies public; which must be considered superior for the common Defense and general welfare of the United States.

And that don't mean crap when it comes to forcing kids to be lab rats in the brand new experiment of fatherless sons and motherless daughters "as marriage".

Kids prevail/adults fail in any contest where the two are grappling for rights. Go to a family court near you and see for yourself.

Not sure what you are referring to; freedom of association and contract is a natural right.

Should kids sign consent forms to be raised by their parents?

Wow... So you're in favor of placing children under the influence and authority of those presenting deviant reasoning, specifically showing little to no means to control deviant sexual impulses?

Do you have some sense of what this says about YOU?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes but.... all other things being equal, a mother/father home is the superior home to any other structure. So it's why most states in the Union recognize the meaning of marriage and refuse to redact it to accomodate a new social experiment that deprives by its very structure, the best formative environment for kids.

There's no predicting what will happen once the base structure is in place. What is predictable is that a son needs a father and a daughter needs a mother.

Not true since it appeals to ignorance of Spartan policies public; which must be considered superior for the common Defense and general welfare of the United States.

ROFLMNAO!

Now THAT is ADORABLE!

Proving once again... you can NOT hide the idiots.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Well, JAKE, . . . . If I cared enough, I would scroll through your posts to see if you ever referred to anyone as"right"."

 

[JakeStarkey]

"So you're in favor of placing children under the influence and authority of those presenting deviant reasoning, specifically showing little to no means to control deviant sexual impulses?"

That's precious, considering that Keyes is the strongest social defunct on the Board since the smasher. He is, in fact, morally insane. Read half a dozen of his long winded comments, and there is no doubt about it.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes but.... all other things being equal, a mother/father home is the superior home to any other structure. So it's why most states in the Union recognize the meaning of marriage and refuse to redact it to accomodate a new social experiment that deprives by its very structure, the best formative environment for kids.

There's no predicting what will happen once the base structure is in place. What is predictable is that a son needs a father and a daughter needs a mother.

Not true since it appeals to ignorance of Spartan policies public; which must be considered superior for the common Defense and general welfare of the United States.

And that don't mean crap when it comes to forcing kids to be lab rats in the brand new experiment of fatherless sons and motherless daughters "as marriage".

Kids prevail/adults fail in any contest where the two are grappling for rights. Go to a family court near you and see for yourself.

Not sure what you are referring to; freedom of association and contract is a natural right.

Should kids sign consent forms to be raised by their parents?

Wow... So you're in favor of placing children under the influence and authority of those presenting deviant reasoning, specifically showing little to no means to control deviant sexual impulses?

Do you have some sense of what this says about YOU?

It is your red herring argument. Freedom of association and contract (Individual Liberty) is a natural right. Only those on the right are communist and don't know it. Some on the left are actively practicing becoming better poets.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keyes thinks four members are in the Godhead, and he knows who is the fourth one.

 

[James Everett]

Keyes thinks four members are in the Godhead, and he knows who is the fourth one.

JAKE,
You never answered my questions....
Now I wish to ask you since you support marriage equality.....
Does this equality that you support apply to polygamists, and the incestuous?
I assume that you do support incest and polygamy in this equality?

 

[danielpalos]

Yes but.... all other things being equal, a mother/father home is the superior home to any other structure. So it's why most states in the Union recognize the meaning of marriage and refuse to redact it to accomodate a new social experiment that deprives by its very structure, the best formative environment for kids.

There's no predicting what will happen once the base structure is in place. What is predictable is that a son needs a father and a daughter needs a mother.

Not true since it appeals to ignorance of Spartan policies public; which must be considered superior for the common Defense and general welfare of the United States.

ROFLMNAO!

Now THAT is ADORABLE!

Proving once again... you can NOT hide the idiots.

Dude, I am presenting valid concepts.

Thermopylae is arguably the most famous battle in European ancient history, repeatedly referenced in ancient, recent, and contemporary culture. In Western culture at least, it is the Greeks who are lauded for their performance in battle.[113] However, within the context of the Persian invasion, Thermopylae was undoubtedly a defeat for the Greeks.[114] It seems clear that the Greek strategy was to hold off the Persians at Thermopylae and Artemisium;[64] whatever they may have intended, it was presumably not their desire to surrender all of Boeotia and Attica to the Persians.[64] The Greek position at Thermopylae, despite being massively out-numbered, was near-impregnable.[92] If the position had been held for even slightly longer, the Persians might have had to retreat for lack of food and water.[65] Thus, despite the heavy losses, forcing the pass was a Persian victory, strategically speaking,[92] though the successful retreat of the bulk of the Greek troops was in its own sense a victory as well. The battle itself had showed that free men, though few in number, were willing to do anything for victory against the invaders. The defeat at Thermopylae had turned Leonidas and the men under his command into martyrs. This boosted the morale of all Greek soldiers in the Second Persian invasion.[92]--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

 

[Montrovant]

Yes but.... all other things being equal, a mother/father home is the superior home to any other structure. So it's why most states in the Union recognize the meaning of marriage and refuse to redact it to accomodate a new social experiment that deprives by its very structure, the best formative environment for kids.

There's no predicting what will happen once the base structure is in place. What is predictable is that a son needs a father and a daughter needs a mother.

Not true since it appeals to ignorance of Spartan policies public; which must be considered superior for the common Defense and general welfare of the United States.

And that don't mean crap when it comes to forcing kids to be lab rats in the brand new experiment of fatherless sons and motherless daughters "as marriage".

Kids prevail/adults fail in any contest where the two are grappling for rights. Go to a family court near you and see for yourself.

Not sure what you are referring to; freedom of association and contract is a natural right.

Should kids sign consent forms to be raised by their parents?

Wow... So you're in favor of placing children under the influence and authority of those presenting deviant reasoning, specifically showing little to no means to control deviant sexual impulses?

Do you have some sense of what this says about YOU?

Are you as strongly opposed to heterosexuals who show 'little to no means to control deviant sexual impulses' having children? What constitutes uncontrolled deviant sexual impulses and who decides that?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Are you as strongly opposed to heterosexuals who show 'little to no means to control deviant sexual impulses' having children?

So where I stated my concerns where the sexually abnormal are set in positions of influence and authority over children, you've come to ask if I have concerns regarding the sexually abnormal being set in position of influence and authority over children?

Brilliant.

What constitutes uncontrolled deviant sexual impulses and who decides that?

So you do not understand the meaning of the words 'uncontrolled' , 'deviant', 'sexual', 'impulse'

Allow me to introduce you to a new concept for you: Dictionary. Ask a friend to help you find one and what it's for. If you manage to figure it out.

 

[Skylar]

Yes but.... all other things being equal, a mother/father home is the superior home to any other structure. So it's why most states in the Union recognize the meaning of marriage and refuse to redact it to accomodate a new social experiment that deprives by its very structure, the best formative environment for kids.

There's no predicting what will happen once the base structure is in place. What is predictable is that a son needs a father and a daughter needs a mother.

Not true since it appeals to ignorance of Spartan policies public; which must be considered superior for the common Defense and general welfare of the United States.

And that don't mean crap when it comes to forcing kids to be lab rats in the brand new experiment of fatherless sons and motherless daughters "as marriage".

And how would marriage of same sex parents harm their children? And please be specific.

The courts have already demonstrated how denying marriage hurts them severely. And you've never been able to offer us a single way in which denying marriage to their parents helps them. Let alone benefits that weight the severe cost and immediate legal harm.

So perhaps you can tell us how marriage of their parents will hurt them.

Or is your argument entirely innuendo based?

Kids prevail/adults fail in any contest where the two are grappling for rights. Go to a family court near you and see for yourself.

The problem with your reasoning is two fold. First, the courts have already found that denying marriage to the same sex parents of these childrens causes immediately legal harm to these children. So by your own standards, gay marriage must be allowed to prevent this harm.

Second, you can't tell us how denying marriage to same sex parents will benefit these children. The court has never found any such benefit.

Third, you can't tell us how marriage to same sex parents will harm their children. The court has never found any such harm.

Leaving us with nothing but the court's finding of harm at denying marriage for their parents. Which destroys your entire argument.

 

[Skylar]

Yes but.... all other things being equal, a mother/father home is the superior home to any other structure. So it's why most states in the Union recognize the meaning of marriage and refuse to redact it to accomodate a new social experiment that deprives by its very structure, the best formative environment for kids.

Yet denying marriage to same sex parents harms those children, per the court's own findings in Windsor. Nor can you cite any benefit for these children in denying marriage to same sex parents. And it would need to be significant enough to balance all the immediate legal harm that denying marriage to same sex parents causes their children.

And you have nothing.

So we're left with immediate legal harm caused by your proposal, as confirmed by the court. And no benefit to your proposal for those children.

There's no predicting what will happen once the base structure is in place. What is predictable is that a son needs a father and a daughter needs a mother.

So denying marriage to same sex parents means that their children suddenly have a 'father and a mother'?

If no, then what possible relevance does denying marriage to same sex parents have to what you insist 'children need'? Nothing you've proposed resolves ANY of the harms you've posited.

These issues you're ignoring are quite enormous. And its unlikely the courts are going to be swayed by an argument that even YOU can't make work.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And good Reader, THAT is how THAT is done... .

 

[Montrovant]

Are you as strongly opposed to heterosexuals who show 'little to no means to control deviant sexual impulses' having children?

So where I stated my concerns where the sexually abnormal are set in positions of influence and authority over children, you've come to ask if I have concerns regarding the sexually abnormal being set in position of influence and authority over children?

Brilliant.

What constitutes uncontrolled deviant sexual impulses and who decides that?

So you do not understand the meaning of the words 'uncontrolled' , 'deviant', 'sexual', 'impulse'

Allow me to introduce you to a new concept for you: Dictionary. Ask a friend to help you find one and what it's for. If you manage to figure it out.

Do you think you're being clever?

Here, let me return the same to you....

So do you not understand the meaning of the words 'subjective' or 'degree'? Because what is or is not an uncontrolled deviant sexual impulse is a subjective thing and there are various degrees of what may be considered deviant. Some people might consider oral sex an uncontrolled deviant sexual impulse. Some might consider sex for pleasure rather than procreation an uncontrolled deviant sexual impulse.

I'll leave you to find a convenient dictionary.

 

[Silhouette]

Are you as strongly opposed to heterosexuals who show 'little to no means to control deviant sexual impulses' having children? What constitutes uncontrolled deviant sexual impulses and who decides that?

More to the point, since nobody can predict with any accuracy at all what happens in adults' bedrooms, the reliable litmus where children are involved is does the inherent structure of a marriage benefit children? A so-called "gay marriage" guarantees to deprive sons of fathers and daughters of mothers. A hetero one does not do this.

That is the only difference between the two that can be spoken about with certainty.

 

[Skylar]

Are you as strongly opposed to heterosexuals who show 'little to no means to control deviant sexual impulses' having children? What constitutes uncontrolled deviant sexual impulses and who decides that?

More to the point, since nobody can predict with any accuracy at all what happens in adults' bedrooms, the reliable litmus where children are involved is does the inherent structure of a marriage benefit children?

Marriage does benefit children. The courts go into elaborate detail of benefits withheld from children when marriage is denied their same sex parents:

"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 spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security."

Windsor v. US

Marriage prevents all those harms. Making it easier for children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own families, offers these children financial benefits, reduced cost healthcare, and benefits that are an integral part of family security.

So how does denying marriage to a same sex couple help their children?

Specifically.