A Child Can't Call 2 Women or 2 Men "Mom & Dad"

[Syriusly]

All 13-year-olds should be able to marry in all 50 states. They can in New Hampshire. What ever happened to civil rights?

If that is what you want- it is your right to pursue your dream of 13 year old marrying.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

OK, fair enough. There are two questions pending before the Court:

1. Your question "How does denying marriage to parents of same sex parents help their children?"

And

2. My question: "How does insitutionalizing an experimental-marriage by federal force upon the states help untold numbers of children the future who will be structurally-deprived; boys of fathers and girls of mothers, being used this way as psychological lab rats?"

Your #1 & #2 condensed is "Should the fed mandate gay marriage across the 50 states".

That is factually the gist of what the parties are asking the Court to do. "Cut to the chase". "Long story short". "In a nutshell".

So....

There is more to consider than a teensy weensy little group whining to the Court that their virulent militant litigation machine came up against a brick wall at the state level to force its weird and frankly cult-like ways upon the People and the Governed without their consent.

There is the consideration of what such a neo-experiment in redacting the word marriage will actually MEAN to the Governed whose consent has been ripped away. And the consideration of how important ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters as a federally-blessed institution will mean to ALL children into TIME UNFORESEEN...cast thusly by just 5 people in DC.

Such an important redaction to the physical structure of society requires the consent of the governed, because this is about behaviors, not race.

And don't even get me started on WHICH behaviors would get the blessing and which wouldn't, and how the Court would be faced with sorting that out in the extreme near-future if this experiment with gays gets a federal blessing. To my knowledge, the Constitution has never provided for minority behavior groups "as a protected class", when the majority finds their play-acting "mom and dad" to kids as an unacceptable and damaging ruse.

Actually, while the first question could be summed up as should same sex marriage be mandated across the country, the second is only if same sex marriage must be recognized across the country when it is performed legally in another state. Those are different things. One would force all states/territories to allow same sex marriage, the other would allow states/territories to retain bans on same sex marriage but force them to recognize such marriages performed elsewhere in the country.

Would you agree that, even without marriage, same sex couples are having/adopting children? If they are, can you explain how allowing same sex marriage would be "ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters"?

The constitution provides for belief groups as a protected class, why not sexual orientation?

But such a compromise, while it would solve the issue, would not be acceptable to the homo brigade who screeches for the right to be married everywhere. They don't want equitable compromise, they want unmitigated victory.

"such a compromise' would not 'solve' the issue, because the bigot brigated, who screeches for denying gays all rights, would be too butt hurt and would whine and whine about 'states' rights- they don't want an equitable compromise, they want unmitigated discrimination against homosexuals.

Funny. I envision you all asl.

I am sure you envision all sorts of vile things.

Meanwhile- as I have pointed out before- if the court rules in a way I disagree with- I will disagree, but accept their ruling as legal.

You?

If the court rules in a way you disagree, you will call them 'fascists in black robes' or some varient thereof.

You forget the courts ruled slavery and segregation laws valid. Sorry, I don't worship the SC as gods like you do. There is only one God.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

All 13-year-olds should be able to marry in all 50 states. They can in New Hampshire. What ever happened to civil rights?

If that is what you want- it is your right to pursue your dream of 13 year old marrying.

You're projecting.

Again.

 

[Syriusly]

Actually, while the first question could be summed up as should same sex marriage be mandated across the country, the second is only if same sex marriage must be recognized across the country when it is performed legally in another state. Those are different things. One would force all states/territories to allow same sex marriage, the other would allow states/territories to retain bans on same sex marriage but force them to recognize such marriages performed elsewhere in the country.

Would you agree that, even without marriage, same sex couples are having/adopting children? If they are, can you explain how allowing same sex marriage would be "ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters"?

The constitution provides for belief groups as a protected class, why not sexual orientation?

But such a compromise, while it would solve the issue, would not be acceptable to the homo brigade who screeches for the right to be married everywhere. They don't want equitable compromise, they want unmitigated victory.

"such a compromise' would not 'solve' the issue, because the bigot brigated, who screeches for denying gays all rights, would be too butt hurt and would whine and whine about 'states' rights- they don't want an equitable compromise, they want unmitigated discrimination against homosexuals.

Funny. I envision you all asl.

I am sure you envision all sorts of vile things.

Meanwhile- as I have pointed out before- if the court rules in a way I disagree with- I will disagree, but accept their ruling as legal.

You?

If the court rules in a way you disagree, you will call them 'fascists in black robes' or some varient thereof.

You forget the courts ruled slavery and segregation laws valid. Sorry, I don't worship the SC as gods like you do. There is only one God.

LOL- sorry, I don't worship you either.

Like I said- if you don't like how the courts rule- you will call them 'fascists in black robes'

Because that is how you think of anyone who dares have a different opinion than you.

 

[Syriusly]

All 13-year-olds should be able to marry in all 50 states. They can in New Hampshire. What ever happened to civil rights?

If that is what you want- it is your right to pursue your dream of 13 year old marrying.

You're projecting.

Again.

I wasn't the one saying that all 13 year old should be able to marry- that would be your pal Silhouette.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

All 13-year-olds should be able to marry in all 50 states. They can in New Hampshire. What ever happened to civil rights?

If that is what you want- it is your right to pursue your dream of 13 year old marrying.

You're projecting.

Again.

I wasn't the one saying that all 13 year old should be able to marry- that would be your pal Silhouette.

Ultimately it will be your misguided movement that empowers the cause of pedophiles, not ours.

 

[Silhouette]

I wasn't the one saying that all 13 year old should be able to marry- that would be your pal Silhouette.

Actually, that was our pal New Hampshire. Noted is your rejecting stance of 13 year olds marrying. So you do agree that some people don't qualify for marriage in all 50 states. I assume that you would argue against polygamists too. So then you do agree that marriage is a privelege with certain qualifiers.

In most states today, one of those qualifiers is man/woman. And that is naturally because the only reasons states are involved in incentivizing marriage in the first place is to insure that boys have fathers and girls have mothers and each house has a father and mother in it for their sake.

 

[Skylar]

Actually, while the first question could be summed up as should same sex marriage be mandated across the country, the second is only if same sex marriage must be recognized across the country when it is performed legally in another state. Those are different things. One would force all states/territories to allow same sex marriage, the other would allow states/territories to retain bans on same sex marriage but force them to recognize such marriages performed elsewhere in the country.

Would you agree that, even without marriage, same sex couples are having/adopting children? If they are, can you explain how allowing same sex marriage would be "ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters"?

The constitution provides for belief groups as a protected class, why not sexual orientation?

But such a compromise, while it would solve the issue, would not be acceptable to the homo brigade who screeches for the right to be married everywhere. They don't want equitable compromise, they want unmitigated victory.

"such a compromise' would not 'solve' the issue, because the bigot brigated, who screeches for denying gays all rights, would be too butt hurt and would whine and whine about 'states' rights- they don't want an equitable compromise, they want unmitigated discrimination against homosexuals.

Funny. I envision you all asl.

I am sure you envision all sorts of vile things.

Meanwhile- as I have pointed out before- if the court rules in a way I disagree with- I will disagree, but accept their ruling as legal.

You?

If the court rules in a way you disagree, you will call them 'fascists in black robes' or some varient thereof.

You forget the courts ruled slavery and segregation laws valid. Sorry, I don't worship the SC as gods like you do. There is only one God.

On issues of legality under our constitution, the USSC is authoritative.

You disagree. So?

 

[Syriusly]

I wasn't the one saying that all 13 year old should be able to marry- that would be your pal Silhouette.

Actually, that was our pal New Hampshire. Noted is your rejecting stance of 13 year olds marrying. So you do agree that some people don't qualify for marriage in all 50 states. I assume that you would argue against polygamists too. So then you do agree that marriage is a privelege with certain qualifiers..

You can drag out any strawmen you want to Silhouette.

Meanwhile- here was your exact quote:

All 13-year-olds should be able to marry in all 50 states. They can in New Hampshire. What ever happened to civil rights?

As I said- I support your right to pursue your goal of marrying 13 year olds.

You have the right to pursue chaning the laws, or to challenge the laws in court.

And none of that has anything to do with same gender marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

All 13-year-olds should be able to marry in all 50 states. They can in New Hampshire. What ever happened to civil rights?

If that is what you want- it is your right to pursue your dream of 13 year old marrying.

You're projecting.

Again.

I wasn't the one saying that all 13 year old should be able to marry- that would be your pal Silhouette.

Ultimately it will be your misguided movement that empowers the cause of pedophiles, not ours.

Oh your misguided movement empowers pedophiles and endangers children every time one of you homophobes equates all homosexuals to pedophiles.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

All 13-year-olds should be able to marry in all 50 states. They can in New Hampshire. What ever happened to civil rights?

If that is what you want- it is your right to pursue your dream of 13 year old marrying.

You're projecting.

Again.

I wasn't the one saying that all 13 year old should be able to marry- that would be your pal Silhouette.

Ultimately it will be your misguided movement that empowers the cause of pedophiles, not ours.

Oh your misguided movement empowers pedophiles and endangers children every time one of you homophobes equates all homosexuals to pedophiles.

Since they're already using your playbook I doubt you'll be successful in pinning the blame on us. You perverts got each other's back.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I wasn't the one saying that all 13 year old should be able to marry- that would be your pal Silhouette.

Actually, that was our pal New Hampshire. Noted is your rejecting stance of 13 year olds marrying. So you do agree that some people don't qualify for marriage in all 50 states. I assume that you would argue against polygamists too. So then you do agree that marriage is a privelege with certain qualifiers..

You can drag out any strawmen you want to Silhouette.

Meanwhile- here was your exact quote:

All 13-year-olds should be able to marry in all 50 states. They can in New Hampshire. What ever happened to civil rights?

As I said- I support your right to pursue your goal of marrying 13 year olds.

You have the right to pursue chaning the laws, or to challenge the laws in court.

And none of that has anything to do with same gender marriage.

Yes, let's pretend to be tone deaf to sarcasm. But since you can't tell the boy sitting between two lez-dikes who want to deball him is miserable, maybe you do need to have social cues explained to you.

 

[Syriusly]

If that is what you want- it is your right to pursue your dream of 13 year old marrying.

You're projecting.

Again.

I wasn't the one saying that all 13 year old should be able to marry- that would be your pal Silhouette.

Ultimately it will be your misguided movement that empowers the cause of pedophiles, not ours.

Oh your misguided movement empowers pedophiles and endangers children every time one of you homophobes equates all homosexuals to pedophiles.

Since they're already using your playbook I doubt you'll be successful in pinning the blame on us. You perverts got each other's back.

'your playbook'? Since when have pedophiles used truth and honesty?

Playbook is an interesting choice- since homophobes like you put children in danger from pedophiles like Jerry Sandusky- an openly heterosexual sports icon- everytime homophobes like you and your ilk, try to portray all homosexuals as pedophiles you open the door to the Jerry Sandusky's of the world, since parents are busy looking at homosexuals and presuming that open heterosexuals can't be child predators.

 

[Syriusly]

I wasn't the one saying that all 13 year old should be able to marry- that would be your pal Silhouette.

Actually, that was our pal New Hampshire. Noted is your rejecting stance of 13 year olds marrying. So you do agree that some people don't qualify for marriage in all 50 states. I assume that you would argue against polygamists too. So then you do agree that marriage is a privelege with certain qualifiers..

You can drag out any strawmen you want to Silhouette.

Meanwhile- here was your exact quote:

All 13-year-olds should be able to marry in all 50 states. They can in New Hampshire. What ever happened to civil rights?

As I said- I support your right to pursue your goal of marrying 13 year olds.

You have the right to pursue chaning the laws, or to challenge the laws in court.

And none of that has anything to do with same gender marriage.

Yes, let's pretend to be tone deaf to sarcasm. But since you can't tell the boy sitting between two lez-dikes who want to deball him is miserable, maybe you do need to have social cues explained to you.

The child does look miserable.

You presume you know why the child looks miserable, and that it fits your anti-gay agenda.

I, on the other hand, only can see that at the moment the photo is taken, the child looks unhappy- anything other than that would be speculating like a raving bigot.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I wasn't the one saying that all 13 year old should be able to marry- that would be your pal Silhouette.

Actually, that was our pal New Hampshire. Noted is your rejecting stance of 13 year olds marrying. So you do agree that some people don't qualify for marriage in all 50 states. I assume that you would argue against polygamists too. So then you do agree that marriage is a privelege with certain qualifiers..

You can drag out any strawmen you want to Silhouette.

Meanwhile- here was your exact quote:

All 13-year-olds should be able to marry in all 50 states. They can in New Hampshire. What ever happened to civil rights?

As I said- I support your right to pursue your goal of marrying 13 year olds.

You have the right to pursue chaning the laws, or to challenge the laws in court.

And none of that has anything to do with same gender marriage.

Yes, let's pretend to be tone deaf to sarcasm. But since you can't tell the boy sitting between two lez-dikes who want to deball him is miserable, maybe you do need to have social cues explained to you.

The child does look miserable.

You presume you know why the child looks miserable, and that it fits your anti-gay agenda.

I, on the other hand, only can see that at the moment the photo is taken, the child looks unhappy- anything other than that would be speculating like a raving bigot.

He's a boy being dressed like a girl, being pumped with estrogen, and being threatened with neutering. Only a complete ASS (meaning you) would think something else is bothering him. You assholes are the reason that laws and courts need to step in and protect children from your sick perversion.

 

[Silhouette]

He's a boy being dressed like a girl, being pumped with estrogen, and being threatened with neutering. Only a complete ASS (meaning you) would think something else is bothering him. You assholes are the reason that laws and courts need to step in and protect children from your sick perversion.

Correct. One can deduce that by the age of 11, this boy has learned what his lesbian parents have in store for his genitals. I assume in this thread we are talking about the other: Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Do you suppose an 11 year old has access to the internet, may know how to use it and may be able to discover photos similar to these to get a view of what his "moms" have in store for him? I'd clamp my hands over my genitals too.

 

[Syriusly]

I wasn't the one saying that all 13 year old should be able to marry- that would be your pal Silhouette.

Actually, that was our pal New Hampshire. Noted is your rejecting stance of 13 year olds marrying. So you do agree that some people don't qualify for marriage in all 50 states. I assume that you would argue against polygamists too. So then you do agree that marriage is a privelege with certain qualifiers..

You can drag out any strawmen you want to Silhouette.

Meanwhile- here was your exact quote:

All 13-year-olds should be able to marry in all 50 states. They can in New Hampshire. What ever happened to civil rights?

As I said- I support your right to pursue your goal of marrying 13 year olds.

You have the right to pursue chaning the laws, or to challenge the laws in court.

And none of that has anything to do with same gender marriage.

Yes, let's pretend to be tone deaf to sarcasm. But since you can't tell the boy sitting between two lez-dikes who want to deball him is miserable, maybe you do need to have social cues explained to you.

The child does look miserable.

You presume you know why the child looks miserable, and that it fits your anti-gay agenda.

I, on the other hand, only can see that at the moment the photo is taken, the child looks unhappy- anything other than that would be speculating like a raving bigot.

He's a boy being dressed like a girl, being pumped with estrogen, and being threatened with neutering. Only a complete ASS (meaning you) would think something else is bothering him. You assholes are the reason that laws and courts need to step in and protect children from your sick perversion.

He is a boy who from what we have heard has gender identity issues- which commonly are associated with depression. There is no evidence he is being threatened with anything- that is entirely your projection.

Only a complete ASS(meaning you) would use this child as part of your campaign to attack homosexuals. You assholes are the reason the law and courts need to step in and protect children from your sick perversion.

 

[Syriusly]

He's a boy being dressed like a girl, being pumped with estrogen, and being threatened with neutering. Only a complete ASS (meaning you) would think something else is bothering him. You assholes are the reason that laws and courts need to step in and protect children from your sick perversion.

One can deduce that by the age of 11,

Thanks for confirming that this is entirely your fantasy- once again.

Just part of your ongoing campaign of hate towards homosexuals.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Actually, that was our pal New Hampshire. Noted is your rejecting stance of 13 year olds marrying. So you do agree that some people don't qualify for marriage in all 50 states. I assume that you would argue against polygamists too. So then you do agree that marriage is a privelege with certain qualifiers..

You can drag out any strawmen you want to Silhouette.

Meanwhile- here was your exact quote:

All 13-year-olds should be able to marry in all 50 states. They can in New Hampshire. What ever happened to civil rights?

As I said- I support your right to pursue your goal of marrying 13 year olds.

You have the right to pursue chaning the laws, or to challenge the laws in court.

And none of that has anything to do with same gender marriage.

Yes, let's pretend to be tone deaf to sarcasm. But since you can't tell the boy sitting between two lez-dikes who want to deball him is miserable, maybe you do need to have social cues explained to you.

The child does look miserable.

You presume you know why the child looks miserable, and that it fits your anti-gay agenda.

I, on the other hand, only can see that at the moment the photo is taken, the child looks unhappy- anything other than that would be speculating like a raving bigot.

He's a boy being dressed like a girl, being pumped with estrogen, and being threatened with neutering. Only a complete ASS (meaning you) would think something else is bothering him. You assholes are the reason that laws and courts need to step in and protect children from your sick perversion.

He is a boy who from what we have heard has gender identity issues- which commonly are associated with depression. There is no evidence he is being threatened with anything- that is entirely your projection.

Only a complete ASS(meaning you) would use this child as part of your campaign to attack homosexuals. You assholes are the reason the law and courts need to step in and protect children from your sick perversion.

Wrong. If you want to have gay butt sex between consenting adults, then vaya con Dios. But when you perverts start victimizing children, that becomes everyone's business.

 

[Silhouette]

The point of this thread is that children can't be used as lab rats in the grand new social experiment...either as fatherless sons or motherless daughters, or in genital mutilation.