Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

[Spare_change]

OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad. And we'd hope they were decent people, yes? Or you don't think it's important? I'm just trying to nail that part down.

Very important, yes

So....

Do you support or oppose gay marriage?

I think it's overall detrimental to society and stability. However, I am a supporter of a majority deciding what they want. Personally, I oppose it

Interesting - I agree with your position, but .....

It's okay to do harm if the "majority" wants it? Does that really make it right? Or, does that simply make it uncomfortable to be steadfast in your beliefs? Don't you owe it to society to try to prevent those doing harm, even if they are the majority?

 

[BULLDOG]

So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life. And how important people feel about that for children.

My father was a pedophile he molested both of his daughters when they were 14. He pushed me into having sex with my girlfriends.

When I was 14. Nobody had to push me to want sex with my girlfriend. Hormones took care of that task.

 

[Bonzi]

OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad. And we'd hope they were decent people, yes? Or you don't think it's important? I'm just trying to nail that part down.

Very important, yes

So....

Do you support or oppose gay marriage?

I think it's overall detrimental to society and stability. However, I am a supporter of a majority deciding what they want. Personally, I oppose it

Interesting - I agree with your position, but .....

It's okay to do harm if the "majority" wants it? Does that really make it right? Or, does that simply make it uncomfortable to be steadfast in your beliefs? Don't you owe it to society to try to prevent those doing harm, even if they are the majority?

Yes, that is what a democracy is about.

 

[Silhouette]

OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad. And we'd hope they were decent people, yes? Or you don't think it's important? I'm just trying to nail that part down.

Very important, yes

So....

Do you support or oppose gay marriage?

I think it's overall detrimental to society and stability. However, I am a supporter of a majority deciding what they want. Personally, I oppose it

Interesting - I agree with your position, but .....

It's okay to do harm if the "majority" wants it? Does that really make it right? Or, does that simply make it uncomfortable to be steadfast in your beliefs? Don't you owe it to society to try to prevent those doing harm, even if they are the majority?

The thing is that most of the states' majorities REJECTED gay marriage. But your points are otherwise well taken. Yes, we all owe it to children to defend their contractual right since time immemorial to 2015 of both a mother and father from marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, that is what a democracy is about.

But Bonzai, using the democratic process gives us 35 some states that REJECTED gay marriage. 5 unelected lawyers in DC's USSC are not how the majority rules itself. There are no, ZERO, protections for people doing deviant sex behaviors in the US Constitution. So the Supreme Court had no basis in Law for the decision it made forcing 35 some states to allow "gay marriage", and at the same moment to force those states to remove children's contractual enjoyment of marriage to both a mother and father.

 

[Bonzi]

Yes, that is what a democracy is about.

But Bonzai, using the democratic process gives us 35 some states that REJECTED gay marriage. 5 unelected lawyers in DC's USSC are not how the majority rules itself. There are no, ZERO, protections for people doing deviant sex behaviors in the US Constitution. So the Supreme Court had no basis in Law for the decision it made forcing 35 some states to allow "gay marriage", and at the same moment to force those states to remove children's contractual enjoyment of marriage to both a mother and father.

I agree, but the US is not being governed as a TRUE democracy

 

[Silhouette]

I agree, but the US is not being governed as a TRUE democracy

So then to recap, you disagree with gay marriage for at least two reasons: 1. Because it deprives children of both vital mother and father for life via contract and 2. Because it was illegally forced upon the majority who (still) rejects it.

?

 

[Spare_change]

OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad. And we'd hope they were decent people, yes? Or you don't think it's important? I'm just trying to nail that part down.

Very important, yes

So....

Do you support or oppose gay marriage?

I think it's overall detrimental to society and stability. However, I am a supporter of a majority deciding what they want. Personally, I oppose it

Interesting - I agree with your position, but .....

It's okay to do harm if the "majority" wants it? Does that really make it right? Or, does that simply make it uncomfortable to be steadfast in your beliefs? Don't you owe it to society to try to prevent those doing harm, even if they are the majority?

Yes, that is what a democracy is about.

Morality doesn't trump (pardon the expression) mass hysteria)?

 

[Syriusly]

OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad. And we'd hope they were decent people, yes? Or you don't think it's important? I'm just trying to nail that part down.

Very important, yes

So....

Do you support or oppose gay marriage?

I think it's overall detrimental to society and stability. However, I am a supporter of a majority deciding what they want. Personally, I oppose it

So you're OK with California, for example, saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman by their majority vote (twice, and still standing as law in their Constitution to this day)?

I am sure she is just as okay with that as she is with the state of Virginia voting that marriage is only between two people of the same race.

Hopefully she is also okay with the Supreme Court overturning unconstitutional laws.

 

[Syriusly]

OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad. And we'd hope they were decent people, yes? Or you don't think it's important? I'm just trying to nail that part down.

Very important, yes

So....

Do you support or oppose gay marriage?

I think it's overall detrimental to society and stability. However, I am a supporter of a majority deciding what they want. Personally, I oppose it

So you're OK with California, for example, saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman by their majority vote (twice, and still standing as law in their Constitution to this day)?

Sure, but doesn't Federal Law override that?

Actually the Constitution overrides that- not Federal law

 

[Syriusly]

OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad. And we'd hope they were decent people, yes? Or you don't think it's important? I'm just trying to nail that part down.

Very important, yes

So....

Do you support or oppose gay marriage?

I think it's overall detrimental to society and stability. However, I am a supporter of a majority deciding what they want. Personally, I oppose it

Interesting - I agree with your position, but .....

It's okay to do harm if the "majority" wants it? Does that really make it right? Or, does that simply make it uncomfortable to be steadfast in your beliefs? Don't you owe it to society to try to prevent those doing harm, even if they are the majority?

Yes, we all owe it to children to defend their contractual right since time immemorial to 2015 of both a mother and father from marriage.

LOL- that 'right' which if it existed- would a) require their parents to marry- and b) prevent their parents from divorcing.

Watch how Silhouette will twist and torture logic to explain how children have the right to parents in marriage- except if the parents aren't married or want to get divorced.

Pretty much anything but be two gays who don't have or want to have any kids.

 

[Syriusly]

I agree, but the US is not being governed as a TRUE democracy

So then to recap, you disagree with gay marriage for at least two reasons: 1. Because it deprives children of both vital mother and father for life via contract and 2. Because it was illegally forced upon the majority who (still) rejects it.

?

So then to recap:
a) you lied about what Bonzi said
b) you lied about what Bonzi said
c) you lied about what Bonzi said

 

[Spare_change]

OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad. And we'd hope they were decent people, yes? Or you don't think it's important? I'm just trying to nail that part down.

Very important, yes

So....

Do you support or oppose gay marriage?

I think it's overall detrimental to society and stability. However, I am a supporter of a majority deciding what they want. Personally, I oppose it

So you're OK with California, for example, saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman by their majority vote (twice, and still standing as law in their Constitution to this day)?

Sure, but doesn't Federal Law override that?

Actually the Constitution overrides that- not Federal law

Actually, the Constitution is not a law ... and carries no legal position.

The laws that are passed must conform, however, to the Constitution. There is a marked difference between the two.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, that is what a democracy is about.

But Bonzai, using the democratic process gives us 35 some states that REJECTED gay marriage. 5 unelected lawyers in DC's USSC are not how the majority rules itself. There are no, ZERO, protections for people doing deviant sex behaviors in the US Constitution. So the Supreme Court had no basis in Law for the decision it made forcing 35 some states to allow "gay marriage", and at the same moment to force those states to remove children's contractual enjoyment of marriage to both a mother and father.

LOL since when has Constitutional protections been subject to the 'democratic process'?

 

[Syriusly]

OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad. And we'd hope they were decent people, yes? Or you don't think it's important? I'm just trying to nail that part down.

Very important, yes

So....

Do you support or oppose gay marriage?

I think it's overall detrimental to society and stability. However, I am a supporter of a majority deciding what they want. Personally, I oppose it

So you're OK with California, for example, saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman by their majority vote (twice, and still standing as law in their Constitution to this day)?

Sure, but doesn't Federal Law override that?

Actually the Constitution overrides that- not Federal law

Actually, the Constitution is not a law ... and carries no legal position.

The laws that are passed must conform, however, to the Constitution. There is a marked difference between the two.

a) I didn't say that the Constitution is a law- though frankly that is an irrelevant distinction.

b) According to the Constitution- the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;.

c) And I agree that both Federal and State laws must conform with the Constitution

 

[Spare_change]

OK so overall, not just your situation, you feel it's good for a kid to have both a mom and dad. And we'd hope they were decent people, yes? Or you don't think it's important? I'm just trying to nail that part down.

Very important, yes

So....

Do you support or oppose gay marriage?

I think it's overall detrimental to society and stability. However, I am a supporter of a majority deciding what they want. Personally, I oppose it

So you're OK with California, for example, saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman by their majority vote (twice, and still standing as law in their Constitution to this day)?

Sure, but doesn't Federal Law override that?

Actually the Constitution overrides that- not Federal law

Actually, the Constitution is not a law ... and carries no legal position.

The laws that are passed must conform, however, to the Constitution. There is a marked difference between the two.

a) I didn't say that the Constitution is a law- though frankly that is an irrelevant distinction.

b) According to the Constitution- the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;.

c) And I agree that both Federal and State laws must conform with the Constitution

Wrong .... but thanks for proving it.

You specifically said "..the Constitution overrides that - not Federal law" That is not true.

Laws are enforced; the Constitution is not.

Laws are the tool against which your behavior is measured. The Constitution is the tool against which laws are measured.

Laws place restrictions on you. The Constitution places restrictions on lawmakers.

Laws are subject to change by the legislative branch. The Constitution is not.

The list goes on and on ... you said a dumb thing.

Just let it go.

 

[tycho1572]

I grew up in a family (mom and dad) that had a set time for dinner. It’s when us kids discussed things going on in our lives.

I’ll never forget my parents reaction when my older sister said she tried marijuana. They were shocked again when my brother and I said we also tried it. lol

Good/fun memories.

 

[Silhouette]

So, mom and dad were important figures for you too, as well as the other 85% of the responders to the poll.

 

[Syriusly]

So you're OK with California, for example, saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman by their majority vote (twice, and still standing as law in their Constitution to this day)?

Sure, but doesn't Federal Law override that?

Actually the Constitution overrides that- not Federal law

Actually, the Constitution is not a law ... and carries no legal position.

The laws that are passed must conform, however, to the Constitution. There is a marked difference between the two.

a) I didn't say that the Constitution is a law- though frankly that is an irrelevant distinction.

b) According to the Constitution- the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;.

c) And I agree that both Federal and State laws must conform with the Constitution

Wrong .... but thanks for proving it.

You specifically said "..the Constitution overrides that - not Federal law" That is not true.

Laws are enforced; the Constitution is not.

Laws are the tool against which your behavior is measured. The Constitution is the tool against which laws are measured.

Laws place restrictions on you. The Constitution places restrictions on lawmakers.

Laws are subject to change by the legislative branch. The Constitution is not.

The list goes on and on ... you said a dumb thing.

Just let it go.

So the Constitution is wrong- when the Constitution said that the Constitution.......shall be the supreme law of the land?

Well you got me- obviously we should accept what you say- rather than the actual words of the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

So, mom and dad were important figures for you too, as well as the other 85% of the responders to the poll.

My mom was important to me. My dad was important to me. My sister was important to me. My grandmother was important to me.

That doesn't mean I was entitled to have all of them in my life- I was just fortunate. Just like a girl with two mom's is fortunate to have them in her life- and the boy with the single mom is fortunate to have her in his life.

Remember again- marriage does not mean children. Children do not mean marriage. Parents are important to their children. If I had someway to snap my fingers and ensure that every child in the United States had two loving caring married parents- i would do so in an instant.

But our system doesn't require parents to be married. Or married couples to have children. Or married couples with children to stay together. Or even that both parents actually raise the children.

If Betty is being raised by her mom- and her dad lives 3,000 miles away- she is being raised by a single parent.- and hopefully a good single parent.
If Betty is being raised by her mom, and her mom's wife- and her dad lives 3,000 miles away- she is being raised by two parents- and hopefully they are both good parents.
Now- if Betty's two mom's get married- then she would have two married mom's- and her dad would be 3,000 miles away- and their children would all be better off than if Betty was single- or the two mom's were not married.

And that really is the crux of it. You know that denying marriage to the gay parents of children just harms their children- and you keep pursuing it- because obviously you want to harm their children.