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

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No, Syriusly and another poster were talking about this thread on the previous page here: Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum I was the one bringing the conversation back to this topic. Might want to read back a page and catch up.

What you did was added genital mutilation to your argument, in fact you described it as part of the point of this thread. That someone else brought it up doesn't change how quickly you added it to your rant about the evils of same sex marriage.

It is part of the evils of queer marriage. If consenting adults kept their perversions to themselves, few would have a problem with them. But they perversely want to impose their perversion on innocent children, children who deserve an intact mother and father family.

How is it part of same sex marriage?

And while I don't know if the hormone treatments were involved, there have been at least a couple of cases of heterosexual parents not telling people the gender of their child so that the child can decide for itself, or avoid gender stereotypes.

It's strange, but as with most things, not a strangeness limited to gays, let alone married gays.

You know what I get weary of? I get weary of people who had the benefit of growing up with a mother and a father telling kids today they can make do with less. Or maybe some of you are people who didn't get a mother and a father and you want children today to have it hard as you did growing up. Good people want more for the next generation, not austerity.

I guess Leftists aren't good people.

You know what I get tired of? Bigots telling parents how to raise their children.

I get weary of the bigots telling parents that they know better than the parents do how to raise children.

I get real weary of bigots telling children of gay people that they don't deserve married parents.

I don't have to guess- bigots aren't good people.

Every child has a mother and a father. That's the simple biological fact that confounds you. When you deliberately remove one or both from the life of a child, what remains aren't "parents". I don't speak to homos victimizing a child on the same level as I talk to real parents like my wife and I. Our four children know who their mother is and who their father is and don't have to endure the awkward discomfort of a man or a woman trying to fill a gender role they can't possibly fill. You aren't parents. You're cruel, self centered assholes who want to "have it all" by creating an illusion of a family that sucks a real, living, innocent child into your delusions.

So I am not guilty of criticizing parents.

 

[Syriusly]

What you did was added genital mutilation to your argument, in fact you described it as part of the point of this thread. That someone else brought it up doesn't change how quickly you added it to your rant about the evils of same sex marriage.

It is part of the evils of queer marriage. If consenting adults kept their perversions to themselves, few would have a problem with them. But they perversely want to impose their perversion on innocent children, children who deserve an intact mother and father family.

How is it part of same sex marriage?

And while I don't know if the hormone treatments were involved, there have been at least a couple of cases of heterosexual parents not telling people the gender of their child so that the child can decide for itself, or avoid gender stereotypes.

It's strange, but as with most things, not a strangeness limited to gays, let alone married gays.

You know what I get weary of? I get weary of people who had the benefit of growing up with a mother and a father telling kids today they can make do with less. Or maybe some of you are people who didn't get a mother and a father and you want children today to have it hard as you did growing up. Good people want more for the next generation, not austerity.

I guess Leftists aren't good people.

You know what I get tired of? Bigots telling parents how to raise their children.

I get weary of the bigots telling parents that they know better than the parents do how to raise children.

I get real weary of bigots telling children of gay people that they don't deserve married parents.

I don't have to guess- bigots aren't good people.

Every child has a mother and a father. That's the simple biological fact that confounds you. When you deliberately remove one or both from the life of a child, what remains aren't "parents". I don't speak to homos victimizing a child on the same level as I talk to real parents like my wife and I. Our four children know who their mother is and who their father is and don't have to endure the awkward discomfort of a man or a woman trying to fill a gender role they can't possibly fill. You aren't parents. You're cruel, self centered assholes who want to "have it all" by creating an illusion of a family that sucks a real, living, innocent child into your delusions.

So I am not guilty of criticizing parents.

Every child has a mother and a father. That's the simple biological fact that confounds you. When you deliberately remove one or both from the life of a child, what remains aren't "parents".

Says you.
When a father deliberately abandons his children, leaving them with their mother, yes- she is a parent.
When two adults decide to adopt children abandoned by their 'natural parents'- yes- they are parents- regardless of whether they are gay or they are not.
And when a couple uses artificial insemination to have children, because neither partner has viable sperm, both of the couple are still parents- not the nameless sperm donor.

I don't speak to homos victimizing a child on the same level as I talk to real parents like my wife and I.Our four children know who their mother is and who their father is and don't have to endure the awkward discomfort of a man or a woman trying to fill a gender role they can't possibly fill.

Good for you- you and your wife- like myself and my wife- haven't abandoned our biological children, and are choosing to raise them.

Unlike us though, you sit in judgement of those who parent in ways you don't approve of- those who adopt, those who use artificial insemination- you judge those parents as not being 'real parents'- you want to stigmatize those parents, and stigmatize their children- you want to deny their children(if the parents are gay) married parents.

You aren't parents

My wife and I are- so are the wonderful gay parents I know raising children.


You're cruel, self centered assholes who want to "have it all" by creating an illusion of a family that sucks a real, living, innocent child into your delusions.

Yeah- I hear crap like that alot from asshole bigots like yourself- but i am in favor of children having parents- and married parents at that- you assholes want to stigmatize their parents, stigmatize their children, and deny children parents- just because of your hatred of homosexuals.

What an asshole.

 

[Silhouette]

Syriusly likes to make this conversation about exceptions and not the rule. The rule is that sons need fathers and daughters need mothers. The rule is that marriage = father & mother, man & wife. Leave the strawmen alone and come back to the topic. Would you like me to, for instance, post the article about the two gay married lesbians in California who are drugging their 11 year old son to become a girl? Or the lesbians in Californa who had their daughter chained to a wall and were ???? along with starving her nearly to death while her two brothers of near equal abuse watched?

 

[Montrovant]

Syriusly likes to make this conversation about exceptions and not the rule. The rule is that sons need fathers and daughters need mothers. The rule is that marriage = father & mother, man & wife. Leave the strawmen alone and come back to the topic. Would you like me to, for instance, post the article about the two gay married lesbians in California who are drugging their 11 year old son to become a girl? Or the lesbians in Californa who had their daughter chained to a wall and were ???? along with starving her nearly to death while her two brothers of near equal abuse watched?

Considering how often your arguments hinge on strawmen, misrepresentations and lies, I think there is a bit of pot and kettle here.

Tell us again how the Prince's Trust Youth Index says gay marriage is bad, why don't you? Or how it's wrong for the state to specify children must be part of marriage even though marriage is entirely about children. Or how children who grow up without a same sex parent are being taught their gender is worthless and unimportant.

 

[Syriusly]

Syriusly likes to make this conversation about exceptions and not the rule. The rule is that sons need fathers and daughters need mothers.?

What rule is that Silly?

What do children call their wolf mothers?

What do children call their hen mothers?

That is the most fascinating question in this thread.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yanno.............I grew up in a family that had a mother and father that hated each other.

If they loved each other and were of the same gender, maybe I would have had a happier childhood.

 

[Silhouette]

Yanno.............I grew up in a family that had a mother and father that hated each other.

If they loved each other and were of the same gender, maybe I would have had a happier childhood.

Your singular case doesn't set a standard. Most mother/father households raise their children well and supply the vital role models of both genders appropriate and best for child development and eventual social navigation.

You cannot cite an extreme example to set a rule by.

 

[Montrovant]

Yanno.............I grew up in a family that had a mother and father that hated each other.

If they loved each other and were of the same gender, maybe I would have had a happier childhood.

Your singular case doesn't set a standard. Most mother/father households raise their children well and supply the vital role models of both genders appropriate and best for child development and eventual social navigation.

You cannot cite an extreme example to set a rule by.

But perhaps you can cite an extreme example to show how something is not a rule. Maybe the point you should take from it is that the gender of a person's parents is far less important than how those parents raise the child.

 

[Silhouette]

Yanno.............I grew up in a family that had a mother and father that hated each other.

If they loved each other and were of the same gender, maybe I would have had a happier childhood.

Your singular case doesn't set a standard. Most mother/father households raise their children well and supply the vital role models of both genders appropriate and best for child development and eventual social navigation.

You cannot cite an extreme example to set a rule by.

But perhaps you can cite an extreme example to show how something is not a rule. Maybe the point you should take from it is that the gender of a person's parents is far less important than how those parents raise the child.

OK, well maybe a pair of brother/sister with incest-children raised them with more love and affection than any gay or straight person around the planet. Are you saying then that therefore incest marraige should be forced upon the 50 states so their "kids won't suffer"?

No, you wouldn't be saying that. In that case you would say "the privelege of marraige has some exceptions". But then of course the question of which are allowed and which are not acceptable has to be decided by someone. You are saying it's 5 kings and queens in DC. I'm saying it's the majority of the goverened in the separate states as Windsor 2013 has already upheld.

 

[Skylar]

Syriusly likes to make this conversation about exceptions and not the rule. The rule is that sons need fathers and daughters need mothers. The rule is that marriage = father & mother, man & wife.

And if you deny same sex parents marriage.....does that mean that thier children magically have opposite sex parents?

Nope.

Your 'solution' (denying marriage to same sex couples) has nothing to do with your 'problem' (lack of opposite sex parents').

 

[Silhouette]

Syriusly likes to make this conversation about exceptions and not the rule. The rule is that sons need fathers and daughters need mothers. The rule is that marriage = father & mother, man & wife.

And if you deny same sex parents marriage.....does that mean that thier children magically have opposite sex parents?

Nope.

Your 'solution' (denying marriage to same sex couples) has nothing to do with your 'problem' (lack of opposite sex parents').

Your solution says that any person on earth should receive the benefits of marriage if they have children. In any conceivable combination. Or else it would be "bigoted and hateful" by anyone denying them.

And if you're not saying that, then you are saying that marriage has limitations. So again I pose the question: who defines those limitations? 5 kings and queens in DC or the discreet communtities of the sovereign states?

 

[Skylar]

Syriusly likes to make this conversation about exceptions and not the rule. The rule is that sons need fathers and daughters need mothers. The rule is that marriage = father & mother, man & wife.

And if you deny same sex parents marriage.....does that mean that thier children magically have opposite sex parents?

Nope.

Your 'solution' (denying marriage to same sex couples) has nothing to do with your 'problem' (lack of opposite sex parents').

Your solution says that any person on earth should receive the benefits of marriage if they have children. In any conceivable combination. Or else it would be "bigoted and hateful" by anyone denying them.

Laughing.....notice you can't show us a single way that denying marriage to same sex parents benefits their children in any way. Nor do you even try. As there is no benefit. For all your babble about 'mothers and fathers', denying same sex couples marriage doesn't provide their children with opposite sex parents.

It only guarantees that their children will never have married parents. Which causes these children immediate legal harm:

"And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.....

...DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security."

Your proposals cause these children humiliation, damage their understanding of the closeness of their own families, rob them of health benefits, and take from them integral parts of their own family's security.

In exchange for exactly jack shit. As denying same sex marriage doesn't help these children at all.

Why would we ever do this to these children? You have no answer. Which speaks volumes.

 

[Montrovant]

Yanno.............I grew up in a family that had a mother and father that hated each other.

If they loved each other and were of the same gender, maybe I would have had a happier childhood.

Your singular case doesn't set a standard. Most mother/father households raise their children well and supply the vital role models of both genders appropriate and best for child development and eventual social navigation.

You cannot cite an extreme example to set a rule by.

But perhaps you can cite an extreme example to show how something is not a rule. Maybe the point you should take from it is that the gender of a person's parents is far less important than how those parents raise the child.

OK, well maybe a pair of brother/sister with incest-children raised them with more love and affection than any gay or straight person around the planet. Are you saying then that therefore incest marraige should be forced upon the 50 states so their "kids won't suffer"?

No, you wouldn't be saying that. In that case you would say "the privelege of marraige has some exceptions". But then of course the question of which are allowed and which are not acceptable has to be decided by someone. You are saying it's 5 kings and queens in DC. I'm saying it's the majority of the goverened in the separate states as Windsor 2013 has already upheld.

Of course marriage has rules surrounding it. Each society decides those rules. In the case of the US, the states get to decide marriage law, subject to constitutional guarantees. The USSC is the final arbiter of what is or is not in violation of those constitutional rights. If the USSC were to decide that denying polygamists marriage violated their constitutional rights, it would be the same situation as we see with same sex marriage.

Polygamy and incest both have different aspects to take into consideration than same sex marriage, so how the courts might rule if such cases were brought before them I can't say. Personally I have no problem with polygamous marriages, although how the various legal aspects of such unions would be dealt with would be inherently more complex than with 2 person marriage. As to incest, not only is there the question of possible inbreeding dangers, there is also the possibility that a close relation might be able to use their position in a familial relationship to hold power over another; it's all too easy to imagine a parent coercing a child in such a relationship because, in general, children grow up learning to do as their parents say. So I'm much more on the fence about incestuous marriage.

If polygamous or incestuous marriage were to be legal in a state, other states would have to recognize that. They wouldn't have to allow such marriages to be performed in their own state, but they would have to recognize the legitimacy of the marriages of another state, just as they do now.

On the other hand, should the USSC rule on those issues in a way I disagreed with, I would not decide that made them kings and queens or dictators or activists.

 

[Skylar]

On the other hand, should the USSC rule on those issues in a way I disagreed with, I would not decide that made them kings and queens or dictators or activists.

Sil's relationship with the USSC is.....odd. He'll gladly cite the USSC if they agree with him. And tell us that their rulings create law.

But if they disagree with him.......he ignores them.

 

[Syriusly]

Syriusly likes to make this conversation about exceptions and not the rule. The rule is that sons need fathers and daughters need mothers. The rule is that marriage = father & mother, man & wife.

And if you deny same sex parents marriage.....does that mean that thier children magically have opposite sex parents?

Nope.

Your 'solution' (denying marriage to same sex couples) has nothing to do with your 'problem' (lack of opposite sex parents').

Your solution says that any person on earth should receive the benefits of marriage if they have children. In any conceivable combination. Or else it would be "bigoted and hateful" by anyone denying them.

And if you're not saying that, then you are saying that marriage has limitations. So again I pose the question: who defines those limitations? 5 kings and queens in DC or the discreet communtities of the sovereign states?

The State defines marriage- subject to the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws 3 times(at least) for being unconstitutional.

You don't care about those times- because they have nothing to do with gay people.

Same gender couples have the same right to marriage as my wife and I enjoy- their children deserve married parents as much as my child does.

You just want to ensure that the children of gay parents do not have married parents.

 

[Silhouette]

Syriusly likes to make this conversation about exceptions and not the rule. The rule is that sons need fathers and daughters need mothers. The rule is that marriage = father & mother, man & wife.

And if you deny same sex parents marriage.....does that mean that thier children magically have opposite sex parents?

Nope.

Your 'solution' (denying marriage to same sex couples) has nothing to do with your 'problem' (lack of opposite sex parents').

Your solution says that any person on earth should receive the benefits of marriage if they have children. In any conceivable combination. Or else it would be "bigoted and hateful" by anyone denying them.

And if you're not saying that, then you are saying that marriage has limitations. So again I pose the question: who defines those limitations? 5 kings and queens in DC or the discreet communtities of the sovereign states?

These questions of law are not laughing matters....they are THE matter coming up shortly. THE matter is who gets to define marriage redaction for the states, the 5 kings and queens in DC or the discreet citizens who self-govern within the states.

You cannot have "marriage equality" for just some applicants. Any age, number or blood relation may also access "an inaliable right". So if it isn't a right extended to any conceivable person or combination of them, then someone has to make the calls on who makes the cut or who doesn't. If it is SCOTUS, it is by its very nature like a commandment from a throne because anything they decide will be subjective and arbitrary and not democratic rule. There is only one place for that democracy to spring from: the STATES.

 

[Syriusly]

Syriusly likes to make this conversation about exceptions and not the rule. The rule is that sons need fathers and daughters need mothers. The rule is that marriage = father & mother, man & wife.

And if you deny same sex parents marriage.....does that mean that thier children magically have opposite sex parents?

Nope.

Your 'solution' (denying marriage to same sex couples) has nothing to do with your 'problem' (lack of opposite sex parents').

Your solution says that any person on earth should receive the benefits of marriage if they have children. In any conceivable combination. Or else it would be "bigoted and hateful" by anyone denying them.

And if you're not saying that, then you are saying that marriage has limitations. So again I pose the question: who defines those limitations? 5 kings and queens in DC or the discreet communtities of the sovereign states?

These questions of law are not laughing matters....they are THE matter coming up shortly. THE matter is who gets to define marriage redaction for the states, the 5 kings and queens in DC or the discreet citizens who self-govern within the states.

You cannot have "marriage equality" for just some applicants. Any age, number or blood relation may also access "an inaliable right". .

And once again- that is not the question before the court.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws at least 3 times previously for being unconstitutional.

'discreet citizens' have no right to enact unconstitutional laws.

But you know that.

 

[Skylar]

Syriusly likes to make this conversation about exceptions and not the rule. The rule is that sons need fathers and daughters need mothers. The rule is that marriage = father & mother, man & wife.

And if you deny same sex parents marriage.....does that mean that thier children magically have opposite sex parents?

Nope.

Your 'solution' (denying marriage to same sex couples) has nothing to do with your 'problem' (lack of opposite sex parents').

Your solution says that any person on earth should receive the benefits of marriage if they have children. In any conceivable combination. Or else it would be "bigoted and hateful" by anyone denying them.

And if you're not saying that, then you are saying that marriage has limitations. So again I pose the question: who defines those limitations? 5 kings and queens in DC or the discreet communtities of the sovereign states?

These questions of law are not laughing matters.

Your inability to relate your legal demands with reality is most definitely a laughing matter. As your entire argument is a joke. You insist we deny same sex parents marriage.....yet can't articulate a single benefit to their children in doing so. You babble about 'opposite sex parents'. But denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically make these parents opposite sex. All it does is guarantee that these children can never have married parents.

Your demands that we deny same sex parents access to marriage do nothing but harm children. And when I ask you why we would ever do this to the children of same sex parents....

......you start rambling about incest and polygamy. You have nothing save hurt, humiliation and immediate legal harm for the children of same sex parents. And you know it. We're simply not going to intentionally harm these children the way you insist we must.

Get used to the idea.

...they are THE matter coming up shortly. THE matter is who gets to define marriage redaction for the states, the 5 kings and queens in DC or the discreet citizens who self-govern within the states.

The 5 'kings and queens' you were quoting only a couple of weeks ago when you thought they agreed with you. The 5 'kings and queens' that you insisted created interim law? You've lauded the authority of the Supreme Court for MONTHS when babbling about Windsor. But now that I've proven that Windsor explictly contradicts you......the Supreme Court suddenly '5 kings and queens'.

Are you trying to make me laugh again?

 

[Skylar]

Syriusly likes to make this conversation about exceptions and not the rule. The rule is that sons need fathers and daughters need mothers. The rule is that marriage = father & mother, man & wife.

And if you deny same sex parents marriage.....does that mean that thier children magically have opposite sex parents?

Nope.

Your 'solution' (denying marriage to same sex couples) has nothing to do with your 'problem' (lack of opposite sex parents').

Your solution says that any person on earth should receive the benefits of marriage if they have children. In any conceivable combination. Or else it would be "bigoted and hateful" by anyone denying them.

And if you're not saying that, then you are saying that marriage has limitations. So again I pose the question: who defines those limitations? 5 kings and queens in DC or the discreet communtities of the sovereign states?

These questions of law are not laughing matters....they are THE matter coming up shortly. THE matter is who gets to define marriage redaction for the states, the 5 kings and queens in DC or the discreet citizens who self-govern within the states.

You cannot have "marriage equality" for just some applicants. Any age, number or blood relation may also access "an inaliable right". .

And once again- that is not the question before the court.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws at least 3 times previously for being unconstitutional.

'discreet citizens' have no right to enact unconstitutional laws.

But you know that.

Of course Sil knows that. There's no question that the USSC can overturn state marriage laws. They've done so repeatedly. He's desperately scrambling....abandoning even a mention of the children of same sex parents when they don't let him hurt gay people.

The only child that Sil cares about is the one he can use. A child that Sil can't use is beneath contempt. He completely ignores them. Watch...I'll make him demonstrate:

Oh Sil? How does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

Watch.....he'll completely ignore these children and the topic of his own thread.

 

[Silhouette]

I care about all children throughout time. You are fixated upon "the kids of gays today". Clearly the one who cares about more children is me. It's simple math.