Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

[Syriusly]

Yes, the phrase "it's all about the children" applies to the marriage contract. If you are married and don't have kids, that doesn't change the contractual terms of marriages in which children do arrive. The few do not set the terms for the many. And in most married homes, children arrive.

Here is the thing- neither Obergefell or Windsor had children.

Yet you say they should not have been allowed to marry.

Because of the children. That they don't have.

Yet you say that two 80 year old heterosexuals should be able to marry- even though they will never have children- because marriage rules are not defined by exceptions.

Why do you think that two 80 year old heterosexuals should be able to legally marry- but not two 80 year old homosexuals?

 

[Syriusly]

When was being black a crime in this country, Syriusly? You can't use the constitution to back your case when the constitution allowed states to put faggots to death for years and years as criminals.

Yeah being black was never a crime- just being black meant you could be a slave.

Yes- our country did allow blacks to be lynched and did allow the homophobic bigots to pass laws to imprison homosexuals- because the contard homophobic bigots felt it was their right to tell adult Americans who they could have private consensual sex with.

And some still think they should be able to.

 

[Syriusly]

Fags are criminal deviants and always will be. They are sexual predators at their core.

That is what the homosexual bigots always tell us.

Why you want to endanger children's safety like that does baffle me.

 

[Syriusly]

Syriusly...you should just tell the truth. You don't care about precedent or fact


..you want fags to be seen as the same as heteros and that is what drives your crusade against normalcy.

Feel free to point out where I haven't spoken the truth. I do care about both precedent and fact- which is why- unlike Silhouette- and yourself- I cite both legal precedents and the facts.

I do want Americans to be treated equally before the law regardless of their color, race, national origin or sexual orientation.

You don't.

That is the fundamental difference between us.

I already pointed it out. You're just self unaware and can't understand what you are arguing is bullshit.

I already pointed it out. You are just another homophobic bigot.

Really no different than those anti-semitic bastards who argue that Jews don't deserve any rights also.

Lol....you don't have history on your side. Faggotry was a crime at one point. ,,,,. No founder considered two fags as a marriage...they considered them to be hung from trees.

And they lynched blacks too.

Wow you are coming up with great references.

At the time of the Founders blacks were not considered to fully human, Catholics and Jews sometimes were penalized for their religion and gays could be imprisoned or even executed.

Or as people like you called them: n*ggers, k*kes, f*gs.

 

[Silhouette]

And if same sex couple do not have children, is it all ok then?

1. a same-sex couple are never the mother and father to children

2. I've covered this before. No, it's not all well, because the overriding marriage contract approved by each state considers the contract for the anticipated arrival of children. If they do not arrive, it doesn't change the terms of the contract. The players for the childrens sake as a legal group affected are still mother and father. Other arrangements can be called something else, but they cannot be called marriage because they don't and cannot ever provide both mother and father to the children the states want raised in these stable homes.

Yes, the phrase "it's all about the children" applies to the marriage contract. If you are married and don't have kids, that doesn't change the contractual terms of marriages in which children do arrive. The few do not set the terms for the many. And in most married homes, children arrive.

Case A: My 80 year old uncle who marries his 70 year old wife: State is happy to have them marry(both before and after Obergefell)- there is no contract with the anticipated arrival of children.

There is the anticipation that grandchildren might be involved. Again, the exceptions don't set the rule where children are concerned. Marriage was created for their prime benefit. The other players are secondary but must fit the parameters of the main players of the benefits. And those parameters are "mother" and "father" (or Grandmother and grandfather). But marriage with respect to children must contain "father" and "mother" or more specifically "male" and "female" to fulfill children's contractual enjoyment of it....since time immemorial thru 2015.

 

[Syriusly]

And if same sex couple do not have children, is it all ok then?

1. a same-sex couple are never the mother and father to children.

And if the same sex couple do not have children?

Then they are exactly the same as every heterosexual couple who doesn't have children.

They cannot have biological children together?

Then they are just like every infertile couple ou there.

Marriage does not equal children
Children do not equal marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

And if same sex couple do not have children, is it all ok then?

1. a same-sex couple are never the mother and father to children

2. I've covered this before. No, it's not all well, because the overriding marriage contract approved by each state considers the contract for the anticipated arrival of children. .

And again- this is entirely your fantasy invention.

When my 80 year old uncle married his 70 year old bride- there was no contract for the anticipated arrival of children.

In Wisconsin, the state marriage law actually forbids some couples from marrying unless they cannot possibly have children together.

This is all just your hissy fit because gay couples can legally marry- and you want to harm them- and their children.

 

[Syriusly]

And if same sex couple do not have children, is it all ok then?

1. a same-sex couple are never the mother and father to children

2. I've covered this before. No, it's not all well, because the overriding marriage contract approved by each state considers the contract for the anticipated arrival of children. If they do not arrive, it doesn't change the terms of the contract. The players for the childrens sake as a legal group affected are still mother and father. Other arrangements can be called something else, but they cannot be called marriage because they don't and cannot ever provide both mother and father to the children the states want raised in these stable homes.

Yes, the phrase "it's all about the children" applies to the marriage contract. If you are married and don't have kids, that doesn't change the contractual terms of marriages in which children do arrive. The few do not set the terms for the many. And in most married homes, children arrive.

Case A: My 80 year old uncle who marries his 70 year old wife: State is happy to have them marry(both before and after Obergefell)- there is no contract with the anticipated arrival of children.

There is the anticipation that grandchildren might be involved. .

Oh wait- now the marriage contract also involves grandchildren?

LOL

Wait- does it also involve great grandchildren? Step great grandchildren? The next door neighbors grandchildren?

 

[Silhouette]

And if the same sex couple do not have children?

Then they are exactly the same as every heterosexual couple who doesn't have children.

Not when it comes to qualifying for the benefits of marriage. States don't care which adults shack up; only the ones they pay benefits to. And they do so to provide/entice mother/father homes for children. So if you're applying for those benefits, be sure to be male and female adults; otherwise with regards to the main contractual enjoyers of the marriage contract (children) you don't qualify. Regardless if you ever produce children. Male/female is the only requirement need to be met in order to insure that if children DO arrive, their terms are met. The state cannot force you to produce children as man/woman, but it knows your biological drives better than you do so it sets up the best scenario for children in the overall terms of what it calls marriage.

That is until 2015 where for the first time in human history, the states are forced by five unelected lawyers to incentivize the opposite of what is best for boys (a father) and girls (a mother). This was a illegal contract revision according to the Infancy Doctrine which says no contract involving children written or implied, may be revised to their detriment.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh wait- now the marriage contract also involves grandchildren?

Marriage involves a male and female who are eligible for the children involved as both FATHER and MOTHER ,as well as grandFATHER and grandMOTHER. The basic qualifier for the children involved are a household father figure and a household mother figure. Women are not fathers and men are not mothers; nor can they ever be fully that missing gender so vital to a child's wellbeing. This is why states used to incentivize marriage. If I was a state I'd not incentivize some contract written to the detriment of children for life. It's not like a single household where the missing gender is incentivized to show up again. It's actually writing out of that child's life as a matter of binding law, the missing parent vital to them.

Which is illegal according to the infancy doctrine.

 

[Syriusly]

And if the same sex couple do not have children?

Then they are exactly the same as every heterosexual couple who doesn't have children.

Not when it comes to qualifying for the benefits of marriage. States don't care which adults shack up; only the ones they pay benefits to. And they do so to provide/entice mother/father homes for children.t.

No- they don't- which is why the States happily marry two 80's year olds and give them the same benefits as two 25 year old with 4 kids.

And which is why a state will marry two first cousins- but only if they prove that they are incapable of having children together.

You know this- you just lie in order to harm gay couples and their kids.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh wait- now the marriage contract also involves grandchildren?

Marriage involves a male and female who are eligible for the children involved as both FATHER and MOTHER ,as well as grandFATHER and grandMOTHER. .

That marriage is getting pretty crowded now.

Do the Grandmother and Grandfather join the husband and wife in bed too in your bizarro marriage world?

Marriage involves two consenting adults- regardless of their gender. It does not involve their mothers and fathers. Grandparents and siblings and yes- even their children- are not part of the marriage contract.

LOL- granma and grampa - my parents would be rather surprised.

 

[Silhouette]

A gay marriage contract binds kids away from a mom or dad for life. That's the first time we have ever seen such a contract.

 

[Skylar]

A gay marriage contract binds kids away from a mom or dad for life. That's the first time we have ever seen such a contract.

Blithering nonsense. No child is a party to the marriage of their parents. Nor is any marriage predicated on children or the willingness to have them.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.