Should AZ Force Gay People To Promote Christian Ideals Against Homosexuality?

[Silhouette]

You are still imagining children. Married people often do not produce children between them. If there are children present in their families, this phenomenon is through another means than through biological procreation. If a married couple does not produce biological children, what harm is done, anyway? Then the married couple would just be one man and one woman down the block, or two men, or two women living down the block. I fail to see why this is so earth-shattering.

Being a child legally separated for life from either a mother or father is brand new law and an earth-shattering concept given that THE reason marriage was invented was to insure both vital mother and father for boys and girls anticipated to arrive.

Two budding business partners sign a contract in anticipation of profits not yet existing, yet when they exist, they are bound by the terms of the contract's specifics for a reason. Not all partnerships result in profits. Some fail right out of the chute. That doesn't mean we revise business contracts to exclude the idea of profits entirely because some partnerships fail.

Marriage has always been about children primarily and adults secondarily since time immemorial. It was that way to keep boys with fathers and girls with mothers and the influence of both in each's life. It was so they grew up to be the best people society could expect instead of outcasts and ne'er do wells as to this day is statistically shown to be true (page 6, left hand side). The largest youth survey of its kind showing the importance of regular male role models for boys and regular female role models for girls> Youth_Index_2010_Jan2011.pdf

And we have 85% of responders here agreeing: Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

 

[Montrovant]

Syriusly, merely repeating over and over your inane stance doesn't give it veracity.l

 

[Lysistrata]

You are still imagining children. Married people often do not produce children between them. If there are children present in their families, this phenomenon is through another means than through biological procreation. If a married couple does not produce biological children, what harm is done, anyway? Then the married couple would just be one man and one woman down the block, or two men, or two women living down the block. I fail to see why this is so earth-shattering.

Being a child legally separated for life from either a mother or father is brand new law and an earth-shattering concept given that THE reason marriage was invented was to insure both vital mother and father for boys and girls anticipated to arrive.

Two budding business partners sign a contract in anticipation of profits not yet existing, yet when they exist, they are bound by the terms of the contract's specifics for a reason. Not all partnerships result in profits. Some fail right out of the chute. That doesn't mean we revise business contracts to exclude the idea of profits entirely because some partnerships fail.

Marriage has always been about children primarily and adults secondarily since time immemorial. It was that way to keep boys with fathers and girls with mothers and the influence of both in each's life. It was so they grew up to be the best people society could expect instead of outcasts and ne'er do wells as to this day is statistically shown to be true (page 6, left hand side). The largest youth survey of its kind showing the importance of regular male role models for boys and regular female role models for girls> Youth_Index_2010_Jan2011.pdf

And we have 85% of responders here agreeing: Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

You are still imagining children. Where are the children you write about coming from? Some heterosexuals will have them by natural means and then proceed to screw up the parental relationship, including through violence between the adult partners. At least with same-sex partners, we know that they care for children because they want to and are volunteers, whereas many heterosexuals just have them because they are careless.
Some heterosexuals think that parenthood means writing out a check for child support, but are not there to diaper, bathe, feed, comfort, cuddle, read bedtime stories, take to school, go to parent-teacher conferences, take their child to doctors, instruct on the ways of the world.
Have fun in fairyland.

 

[Syriusly]

Congress has no Power, to dictate morals of Religion.

The Judicial has no Power to dictate (a)morals of the LGBTQ etc. cult either.

Well I guess its a good thing that the Judiciary hasn;t dictated morals to anyone.

The Judiciary enforces the Constitution- so that the 'moral majority' like yourself- can't tell Jews or Blacks or Gays what is permissable to say, who they are allowed to marry or who they can have sex with.

 

[Syriusly]

Syriusly, merely repeating over and over your inane stance doesn't give it veracity.l

LOL- I enjoy citing the facts again- I cite the actual laws- the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Colorado Public Accommodations law- and court cases- such as Obergefell, Windsor, Loving, Lawrence

You cite what the voices in your head tell you.

 

[Syriusly]

If people doing deviant sex want specific protection for themselves.

People doing 'deviant sex' got protection from unconstitutional interference into their privacy in Lawrence v. Texas.

Because of Lawrence v. Texas good ol boys can no longer have gays arrested for private consensual sex.

Obergefell of course has nothing to do with the 'deviant sex' you are so obsessed with. It has to do with marriage.

Marriage is a public recognition of two people to cohabitate with the best benefit to children.

Marriage is a public recognition of the union and partnership of two people. Marriage doesn't require children- and children don't require marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

What children?

The children every state anticipates will statistically arrive to a marriage; whether or not they do. They have to approve of a contract to "children" generally as to marriage. Gay marriage takes either the father or mother away from those anticipated children for life as a matter of contractual law; which is forbidden to do..

There is virtually nothing in that paragraph that is actually true- it is all literally plucked from your imagination.

 

[Syriusly]

So you think that a lot of children will be born to same-sex couples? Please review basic biology.

Nice strawman. We agree that gays can never be natural parents. .

Lots of gays are biological parents of children. Probably not the majority but certainly there is nothing preventing any gay person from being a biological parent.

And preventing two gays from marrying- doesn't magically provide those kids with a parent of the opposite gender.

It only ensures that their children will be harmed.

Which is clearly the point of your campaign.

 

[Syriusly]

If people doing deviant sex want specific protection for themselves.

People doing 'deviant sex' got protection from unconstitutional interference into their privacy in Lawrence v. Texas.

Because of Lawrence v. Texas good ol boys can no longer have gays arrested for private consensual sex.

Obergefell of course has nothing to do with the 'deviant sex' you are so obsessed with. It has to do with marriage.

In 100% of so-called "gay marriage", children are stripped of one or the other "legally" for life. Which is a violation of their millennial-old contractual enjoyment of marriage for their sake.

And again you are just lying.

• For perhaps the majority of gay couples- they will have no children- so not 100% of anything
• Children being raised by a gay couple are not being stripped of anything when their two mom's marry- instead they are getting two legally married mom's- they are getting protection- which you want to deny.

And this comes down to the ultimate lie of your campaign. Your goal is deny gays marriage- and to injure any children that they raise.

How do we know this?

Because everything you propose has no other purpose- no other outcome.

You want to deny all gay couples their right to marriage- 'to protect the children'
Even the gay couples who don't have children.
Even though denying a gay couple with children won't protect those children at all.

The only things your proposals do is:
a) Deny gay couples marriage and
b) Deny their children married parents.

Your proposals do nothing but harm people- and that is your intention.

 

[Syriusly]

Imagining children?

Well you aren't imagining children- you are using and abusing the issue of children in order to harm gay Americans.

Obergefell and Windsor- neither couple had children- yet you claim that they should be denied marriage because of the children you imagine that they might have.

You claim that marriage is only for children- but you have no problem with infertile 80 year olds who will never have children marrying- as long as they are straight. You claim that is the exception to the rule- but ignore the fact that with gays being some 3% of the population- everything that they do is as much of an exception at two 80's year old heterosexuals marrying.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
Marriage has always been about children primarily and adults secondarily since time immemorial. It was that way to keep boys with fathers and girls with mothers and the influence of both in each's life.

You keep repeating that- but the voices in your head are lying to you.

Men married women right before they went off to fight World War 2- knowing that they might die. Not because that marriage was designed to keep boys with fathers- but because they wanted to be married to their wives. Sea Captains married and left on 2 year voyages leaving their wives to raise all of the kids.

Everything you do is designed to harm gays- and any children that they may raise.

 

[Silhouette]

And gay marriage is designed to hurt children by using a contract to hold them away from either a mom or dad for life.

 

[Montrovant]

And gay marriage is designed to hurt children by using a contract to hold them away from either a mom or dad for life.

If the gay couple is not having the children biologically, wouldn't that mean any children they have are already without a mother or father? The gay married couple would be adopting. Children that get adopted are already without parents, or at least without parents who have any involvement in their lives.

If you are concerned about children not having a mother and father, the only argument that might make sense in this context would be that gay couples shouldn't have biological children where the sperm or egg donor does not have a part in the child's life. Whether or not a same sex couple is married has no effect on the parental status of their children.

Are you going to argue that it's better for a child without parents to wait and hope that an opposite sex couple might adopt them than have a same sex couple do so now? I believe that is an argument you've made before.

 

[Silhouette]

It's best for a state to incentivize mother/father marriages for the contract's main beneficiaries: children who come in both genders and who need regular mentors in the home of their own gender.

If the couple remains childless that's their choice. But that choice doesn't affect the terms of the contract and its main beneficiaries in homes where children arrive; where states' extending benefits are concerned. They get something out of the terms: children raised by both mother and father. Otherwise it's not worth the dime they spend.

And, contracts children share implicitly cannot contain terms detrimental to them; such as legally bifurcating them from either a mother or father for life. Because marriage is about the children it serves and has been about that since the beginning of recorded human history, only man/woman contracts are valid because only that combination can provide father and mother to children which statistically will arrive. States rely on statistics, not rare exceptions to the rule when setting rules about marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

And gay marriage is designed to hurt children by using a contract to hold them away from either a mom or dad for life.

And how does it keep them way fro a mom or dad 'for life' Silly?

Case A:
Sally and Jill are moms to two kids- not married.
Case B:
Sally and Jill are moms to two kids- married.
Case C:
Sally is the mom of two kids

Tell me how in Silly's world the kids are worse off in Case B- than in Case A or Case C.

Because in the real world- the kids in Case B are protected from harm.

And that is of course why you object to gays being married. Because you want their children to be harmed.

 

[Syriusly]

It's best for a state to incentivize mother/father marriages for the contract's main beneficiaries: children who come in both genders and who need regular mentors in the home of their own gender..

Except of course the state doesn't do that. The state provides incentives for kids- and provides incentives for married people- it doesn't provide married people incentives to have kids.

And of course the state provides for no fault divorce so those parents can divorce each other and no longer be 'regular mentors in the home of their own gender'

But that would be great for girls being raised by two moms- so that they could have two mentors of their own gender.

It is fun to watch Silhouette twist and torture logic- and the facts- to build a house of cards designed to deny gay couples- and their children equal treatment- and to specifically harm them.

 

[Silhouette]

The exceptions that don't fit "father/mother" are not called "marriage". Father/mother further distilled are "adult male/adult female". In many states these must not be related by blood too closely. All for reasons of the children anticipated to arrive. Just like profits are anticipated to arrive in any budding business contract between partners. Their nonexistence at the onset of the partnership does not mean they aren't part of the anticipated and implied contract.

So if you're an adult male & adult female not related too closely by blood, you may marry because only adult males and adult females can be fathers and mothers. Any other combination doesn't work for what the kids need. So adult male and females may marry, regardless of the presence of children at the outset. It's their anticipation that states set the parameters around. Failing to produce doesn't disqualify you as an adult male and female. Some day you two might decide to adopt. And so, you must fit the bill.

 

[mdk]

 

[Syriusly]

The exceptions that don't fit "father/mother" are not called "marriage". Father/mother further distilled are "adult male/adult female". In many states these must not be related by blood too closely. All for reasons of the children anticipated to arrive. Just like profits are anticipated to arrive in any budding business contract between partners. Their nonexistence at the onset of the partnership does not mean they aren't part of the anticipated and implied contract.

So if you're an adult male & adult female not related too closely by blood, you may marry because only adult males and adult females can be fathers and mothers. Any other combination doesn't work for what the kids need. So adult male and females may marry, regardless of the presence of children at the outset. It's their anticipation that states set the parameters around. Failing to produce doesn't disqualify you as an adult male and female. Some day you two might decide to adopt. And so, you must fit the bill.

Did you even read that gibberish you wrote?

The States have laws allowing the marriage of First Cousins- but only if they prove that they cannot have children. But you seem to be saying that their children are still part of some implied contract- when the contract specifically says there can be no children!

IF the States actually meant that Marriage was for the benefit of children- then they would just forbid the marriage of First Cousins- rather than giving them a carve out to allow them to marry- but only if they cannot have children.

And yes- many states just forbid that kind of marriage completely.

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage is about children first and foremost, their anticipation and stable home of father/mother for boys and girls to arrive. Deal with that.