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

[mdk]

Animals don't get married, they seem to figure out what they need to do without a contract.

Don't tell them that. lol

 

[Spare_change]

"Child poverty is an ongoing national concern, but few are aware of its principal cause: the absence of married fathers in the home. According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for single parents with children in the United States in 2008 was 36.5 percent. The rate for married couples with children was 6.4 percent. Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 80 percent."

Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty

 

[Moonglow]

"Child poverty is an ongoing national concern, but few are aware of its principal cause: the absence of married fathers in the home. According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for single parents with children in the United States in 2008 was 36.5 percent. The rate for married couples with children was 6.4 percent. Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 80 percent."

Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty

There is also a huge problem of underachieving males..ie, they won't work or work steady.

 

[Moonglow]

"Child poverty is an ongoing national concern, but few are aware of its principal cause: the absence of married fathers in the home. According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for single parents with children in the United States in 2008 was 36.5 percent. The rate for married couples with children was 6.4 percent. Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 80 percent."

Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty

That was one of the cost of the equality movement, no choice divorces....

 

[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.

I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
People who want to deny marriage to gay parents don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is fucking steak.

I don't know about every person who wants to deny marriage to gay parents- I was speaking to Silhouette and her perverse multi year campaign to deny the children of gay parents married parents.

 

[Syriusly]

I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
People who want to deny marriage to gay parents don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is fucking steak.

How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children? All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father. Pretty messed up eh? The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.

Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.

That is only for legal contracts a person entered into as a minor. Children do not enter into a marriage contract of their parents, only themselves...

We'll see...s.

We will see- so far there is absolutely no momentum or drive for a Constitutional Amendment to deny gay couples marriage.

And that is what it would take.

 

[Syriusly]

I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
People who want to deny marriage to gay parents don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is fucking steak.

How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children? All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father. Pretty messed up eh? The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.

Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.

That is only for legal contracts a person entered into as a minor. Children do not enter into a marriage contract of their parents, only themselves...

In Sil's imaginary legal world, children that don't exist yet are an implicit party to a marriage contract. Mind you, not a single court in this nation recognizes that legal standard, but none of that matters when you have a mentally ill obsession.

But wait- not only the children- but the grandparents too are implicit parties to the marriage contract.

Its all part of Silly's dance to rationalize her bigotry towards gay parents and their children.

 

[Syriusly]

I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
People who want to deny marriage to gay parents don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is fucking steak.

Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.

Ergo you are delusional.

 

[Syriusly]

Do you remember all the oral arguments and Amicus briefs opposing gay marriage citing the Infancy Doctrine as their reason? Yeah, me neither.

Yeah- oddly the attorney''s for all of the states who fought to deny gay couples their right to marriage missed that one. I guess they didn't go to the same law school as Silly.

However States did try to argue that marriages were for the benefit of children- that failed for the obvious reasons;
a) the States happily married infertile couples- without any test or challenge to prove that they could have children and
b) some states actually have provisions for legal marriage that barred any possibiility of having children.

Which is why Silhouette's arguments fail every time- State marriage laws are not for the benefit of the children- they are for the benefit of the couple marrying.

 

[Silhouette]

The qualifications, Syriusly, are adult male and adult female. Without children present at the outset. Anticipation is the keyword for the implied partners in the marriage contract.

 

[Silhouette]

How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children? All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father. Pretty messed up eh? The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.

Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.

That is only for legal contracts a person entered into as a minor. Children do not enter into a marriage contract of their parents, only themselves...

And to contracts where children share implicit ANTICIPATED enjoyments as in marriage's case, since the dawn of human history. They are THE anticipated partners of the marriage contract and the reason it was created in the first place. Og and Thorna as well as PhDs today noticed that when a boy lacks a father of a girl a mother in their life, they suffer real actual suffering and psychological deprivation.

So we created marriage to anticipate children. Adult male marries adult female. Whether or not they produce children is irrelevant to the contract since its designs are in anticipation of children. They must be. Because another thing states hope for is that people marry BEFORE they have children for the child's best interest from day one to adulthood. (again, lack of implied partners at outset of contract ALSO about children's best interest/share in said contract).

So, boys need a father, girls a mother. And so adult males and adult females not related too closely by blood (again for reasons of the children), qualify for marriage. Any other arrangement like so-called "gay marriage" cannot qualify because not only does it not provide the necessary father for the boy or mother for the girl, it (il)legally separates those children from the missing gender 100% of the time. Which is institutionalized cruelty to children.

Yes, I said "gay marriage is institutionalized cruelty to children." Because that is precisely what it is. And 85% of the people who voted in the poll above agree, whether or not they thought it through when they were voting .

 

[mdk]

 

[Silhouette]

I'm an indepentent who was fortunate to have had a mother and a father as head of household. I learned separate and valuable lessons from each as well as those values they held in common. It was a perfect, imperfect family within which I was given the tools to use in accepting or avoiding those choices and repercusions I would come to make as I struck out on my own. I payed attention to some of them.

So you felt both a mother and father were vital to you from that marriage? Both your father, a man and your mother, a woman had their intrinsic input to which you felt was unique and invaluable?

 

[Syriusly]

How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children? ..

[/QUOTE]

I think that is just a lie you promote in order to hurt gay couples and their children.

 

[Syriusly]

How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children? All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father. Pretty messed up eh? The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.

Ergo, the gay marriage contract

Ergo, Silhouette is delusional- and just makes up crap about marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Anticipation is the keyword for the implied partners in the marriage contract.

Anticipation is entirely your fantasy contribution to the marriage contract between two people.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm an indepentent who was fortunate to have had a mother and a father as head of household. I learned separate and valuable lessons from each as well as those values they held in common. It was a perfect, imperfect family within which I was given the tools to use in accepting or avoiding those choices and repercusions I would come to make as I struck out on my own. I payed attention to some of them.

So you felt both a mother and father were vital to you from that marriage? Both your father, a man and your mother, a woman had their intrinsic input to which you felt was unique and invaluable?

Something about these two posts bothering you Syriusly?

 

[rightwinger]

Gays seem to be doing quite well as parents

 

[Syriusly]

I'm an indepentent who was fortunate to have had a mother and a father as head of household. I learned separate and valuable lessons from each as well as those values they held in common. It was a perfect, imperfect family within which I was given the tools to use in accepting or avoiding those choices and repercusions I would come to make as I struck out on my own. I payed attention to some of them.

So you felt both a mother and father were vital to you from that marriage? Both your father, a man and your mother, a woman had their intrinsic input to which you felt was unique and invaluable?

Something about these two posts bothering you Syriusly?

the only thing that bothers me is you pretending to reply to me without using reply.

Other than that- nope.

I was fortunate to have two wonderful parents.

My neighbor was unfortunate enough that her mom remarried a man who molested her as a kid.

Others i knew were fortunate enough to be raised by their mom after their dad abandoned them.

Now the two married gay couples I know aren't raising any kids- but if they were- the kids would be lucky to have them as parents.

 

[Silhouette]

Sorry Syriusly, your exceptions don't run the rule. Except that you had a mom and dad but seek to legally remove that same enjoyment from kids.