Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
- Thread starter
- #61
I'm reposting this due to Syriusly spamming the last page out ....again...this is quite the chronic problem.
This is a matter for the states to decide. Kids caught up in unfortunate parenting situations that don't allow them to have a single human mom and dad is terrible for sure. But because they are suffering doesn't meant we dismantle the word "marriage". Marriage exists as it does structurally to entice people away from undesireable parenting (gay, single, polygamist, incest) and towards what is healthiest and best for children. Otherwise states simply wouldn't be involved. It's a fiscal decision the states long ago figured out that it's worth losing some in perks to legitimately married people in order to insure the best formed (and therefore least expensive) citizens that grow into adulthood there.
Inferior situations foster mental illness and the resulting indigency, crime and other woes that costs states tons more in fiscal losses.. There are a tiny handful of states who decided to take a risk on their future citizens by depriving them of a mom or a dad by incentivizing gay marriage. That's their right as a state, even though they've been hoodwinked IMHO by the APA into believing that won't be harmful to kids (see the links in the OP for details). But the vast majority of states don't have legal gay marriage. Marraige is and always has been up to the states. Federally-imposed "gay marriages" there by lower courts are not legal and never have been. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Children have been adopted by wolves, goats and even chickens. We would not call their "parents" married would we?A child can't call three or four moms and a single dad his/her parents even if they are married. A child can't be adopted by animals or trees either but maybe someday if democrats keep getting elected.
This is a matter for the states to decide. Kids caught up in unfortunate parenting situations that don't allow them to have a single human mom and dad is terrible for sure. But because they are suffering doesn't meant we dismantle the word "marriage". Marriage exists as it does structurally to entice people away from undesireable parenting (gay, single, polygamist, incest) and towards what is healthiest and best for children. Otherwise states simply wouldn't be involved. It's a fiscal decision the states long ago figured out that it's worth losing some in perks to legitimately married people in order to insure the best formed (and therefore least expensive) citizens that grow into adulthood there.
Inferior situations foster mental illness and the resulting indigency, crime and other woes that costs states tons more in fiscal losses.. There are a tiny handful of states who decided to take a risk on their future citizens by depriving them of a mom or a dad by incentivizing gay marriage. That's their right as a state, even though they've been hoodwinked IMHO by the APA into believing that won't be harmful to kids (see the links in the OP for details). But the vast majority of states don't have legal gay marriage. Marraige is and always has been up to the states. Federally-imposed "gay marriages" there by lower courts are not legal and never have been. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum