Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Silhouette, Jan 25, 2015.

?

I've read the 56 references in Windsor to states' power in redefining marriage & I believe...

  1. SCOTUS will have marriage equality for all mandated federally after this year's Hearing.

    7 vote(s)
    63.6%
  2. SCOTUS will have marriage equality for just same-sex marriage mandated federally after this year.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. SCOTUS will simply reaffirm Windsor & keep the regulation of which lifestyles may marry to states.

    4 vote(s)
    36.4%
  1. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,048
    Thanks Received:
    5,404
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +15,564
    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?
     
  2. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,048
    Thanks Received:
    5,404
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +15,564
    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.
     
  3. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,048
    Thanks Received:
    5,404
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +15,564
    That is what the homosexual bigots always tell us.

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

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,048
    Thanks Received:
    5,404
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +15,564
    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.
     
  5. Silhouette
    Offline

    Silhouette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    20,751
    Thanks Received:
    1,417
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +6,502
    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.
    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.
     
  6. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,048
    Thanks Received:
    5,404
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +15,564
    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.
     
  7. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,048
    Thanks Received:
    5,404
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +15,564
    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.
     
  8. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,048
    Thanks Received:
    5,404
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +15,564
    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?
     
  9. Silhouette
    Offline

    Silhouette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    20,751
    Thanks Received:
    1,417
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +6,502
    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.
     
  10. Silhouette
    Offline

    Silhouette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    20,751
    Thanks Received:
    1,417
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +6,502
    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.
     

Share This Page