A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights

[Skylar]

The delusion that marriage has "always" been one man and one woman.

Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman... and this due to the natural design of the human species, which is to say: Human Physiology. Wherein Nature provides two distinct, but complimenting Genders... each respectively designed; both physically and emotionally, to sustainably join with the other, from one sustainable body, from two.

There is no marriage in nature. What you're describing is *******. You equate them. And you're laughably wrong.

Back in reality marriage is our creation. It is whatever we say it is. And in 37 of 50 States it includes a man and a man or a woman and a woman. And within the next few weeks it will include 50 of 50 States.

You say otherwise. No one gives a shit. As your subjective personal opinion defines nothing objectively. You can't get around that.

And with that said; Your concession is AGAIN: Duly noted and summarily accepted.

[/quote]

And....your tell. Where you bizarrely and summarily declare victory.....just before you run.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to run.

 

[Skylar]

(Reader did ya notice that it also was unable to identify even one of the elements of the actual argument, which it rejects... There's a reason for that and it's not very flattering to the cult.)

Keyes....what 'reader' are you talking about? You're just talking to yourself. Just like you're quoting yourself, as you cite yourself. Your argument and your imaginary audience exists entirely inside your head. And it has no impact whatsoever on the world outside.

Marriage is still whatever we say it is. Same sex unions are still marriage in 37 of 50 States. And your claims continue to be nothing more than your subjective personal opinion, backed by nothing.

Simply put, you're irrelevant to anyone else's marriage.

In that, Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman... as that is how nature designed it and that is all it CAN BE.

Obvious nonsense. There is no marriage in nature. For the 10th time, you're describing *******. Not marriage. They aren't the same thing, no matter how hard you pretend. You can **** without marriage. And you can marry without being able to have kids. As children aren't a requirement of marriage for....

...anyone.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

The delusion that marriage has "always" been one man and one woman.

Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman... and this due to the natural design of the human species, which is to say: Human Physiology. Wherein Nature provides two distinct, but complimenting Genders... each respectively designed; both physically and emotionally, to sustainably join with the other, from one sustainable body, from two.

Note the assertion, which is followed by the sustaining, and wholly irrefutable reasoning. With your subjective need to refute it, notwithstanding.

Now, since you will have no means to understand what that means, just go to any post of mine where I state the specifics; stating the delusion and the traits specific to such.

Stated above: a delusion or a lie, which is it?

The statement you made above, is indeed: DELUSIONAL. Which is to say, that which is not true, being advanced as truth, and believed to be truth, despite the overwhelming evidence set within reality that demonstrates otherwise.

See how that works?

And with that said; Your concession is AGAIN: Duly noted and summarily accepted.

Poor gay blade, you really do think repeating your strawman ad nauseam is helping your argument. It's not because it ignores the simple fact that in the U.S., government sanctioned marriage is based on laws and rights, not nature. And the laws are what we, as a society, decide them to be.

His version of natural law means that he approves of such a thing. If he doesn't then it's unnatural. That makes things so easy after all...

That's exactly it. Keys uses laughably inconsistent reasoning. Where he insists his 'observations of nature' define natural law. Which define god's law.

But......if he doesn't like an observation of nature, he simply ignores it. Where by any rational standard, any observation of nature would be as valid as any other in defining natural law. Instead, Keys only accepts as 'observations of nature' those things that he's comfortable with, based on what he already believes.

Its just plain old Confirmation Bias and classic Cherry Picking. Two obvious fallacies of logic. Where anything that he doesn't agree with is ignored and anything he does is cited.

There is no objectively valid standard that is based on fallacies of logic. Yet Keys bases his standards on a pair of them. Rendering his standards and his conclusions objectively meaningless.

 

[Clementine]

A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights

Ah, no...

Oh! Now THAT is brilliant... except, according to the Author of the Article, a Canadian, who was raised by homosexuals... thus who inherently knows the cult and their desires and purpose, says that it's a fact.

The biggest threat from all this is the fact that government will censor speech and make it crime to express certain opinions. It's much the same way with how Britain handles the critics of Islam. Libs don't see opinions, they see themselves as being right and those who disagree as being guilty of hate crimes.

Never mind that many Christians don't hate gays, but just don't want to be involved in gay weddings or approve of gay marriage. It goes against their beliefs, which the left now says they are no longer allowed to have.

It's a matter of making it a thought crime, punishable by fines and jail time, to openly criticize certain groups. The liberals will give you an opinion if they want you to have one. They do not approve of people embracing their own beliefs. Currently, only Muslims get a free pass for hating certain groups.

The left has zero tolerance for dissenting views to the point where they would rather use legislation to silence opposition than continue open debate. Once they declare something as fact, they want to punish those who disagree.

They are fascists, plain and simple. Accept their views or pay the price because there are no other choices.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The biggest threat from all this is the fact that government will censor speech and make it crime to express certain opinions.

Yeah, not gonna happen in a money = free speech nation. Stop wetting the bed, you can say how much you hate the homos all you like.

 

[Skylar]

A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights

Ah, no...

Oh! Now THAT is brilliant... except, according to the Author of the Article, a Canadian, who was raised by homosexuals... thus who inherently knows the cult and their desires and purpose, says that it's a fact.

The biggest threat from all this is the fact that government will censor speech and make it crime to express certain opinions. It's much the same way with how Britain handles the critics of Islam. Libs don't see opinions, they see themselves as being right and those who disagree as being guilty of hate crimes.

Except that they don't. You can say all the ignorant, hateful shit you'd like. And the law isn't going to prevent it. That's the beauty of the 1st amendment.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh! So Natural Law is straw reasoning. Wouldn't Locke be shocked to learn that?

There's no 'natural law of marriage'. You made that up.

So your conclusion is then that the argument is straw reasoning: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

I'll take that concession; noted and accepted.

Well ok... Let's you and I break it down, shall we... (Reader you can go on to bed, as Skylar will now become OBSESSED with something else... ANYTHING ELSE, except this discussion.)

Again, your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself. ...

WOW~ So you're going to invoke straw reasoning, after just lamenting straw reasoning? HYSTERICAL!

Love the irony.

I'll take THAT concession; noted and accepted.


So you've agreed that you conclude that the reasoning at issue is that of straw, a pretense which I conjured to escape the reality that is your need for sexual deviancy to be sexual normality?

Now the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

Skylar was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus concedes to this point. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

Skylar was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus concedes to this point. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the emotional nature of the respective genders compliment the other.

Are you coming to reject that fact?

Skylar was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus concedes to this point. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the physical and emotional joining common to the purpose of distinct genders; wherein two bodies join into one sustainable body, that such represents the design standard as nature intended, thus the natural standard of the joining of two bodies into one legally recognized body, which is OKA: Marriage.

There is no marriage in nature. [/QUOTE]

Humanity exists in nature... this is incontestable, thus Skylar's only contest is refuted in undeniable terms.

Thus demonstrating Skylar's and by extension, the homo-cult's concession to the reality that in point of unassailable fact, Marriage IS, the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And by virtue of that, there is no potential for a claim of inequity for those seeking to join with people of the same gender, who claim that their being disqualified from marriage, sets them so.

And with that said, Skylar's 6th Concession in a single post; a post wherein she lost the ENTIRETY of this debate... is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And THAT Reader is how THAT is done.

This post will be repeated about a million times everyday, until the SCOTUS scuttles the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

 

[Skylar]

[So your conclusion is then that the argument is straw reasoning: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

The conclusion is that you made up the 'natural law of marriage', pulled sideways out of your ass, based on your own relativistic assumptions. And you've offered us nothing but your own relativistic assumptions to back up your made up 'natural law of marriage'.

With your assumption debunked by one simple fact: there is no marriage in nature.

You can't get around that. And what you described as 'marriage' is merely *******. Which obviously isn't the same thing. You can't tell the difference. A rational person could.

I'll take that concession; noted and accepted.

Whatever. The imaginary 'concession' like your sources, like your reasoning, like your audience....is just you citing yourself. Which is meaningless.

This post will be repeated about a million times everyday, until the SCOTUS scuttles the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

No it won't.

 

[Skylar]

[So your conclusion is then that the argument is straw reasoning: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

The conclusion is that you made up the 'natural law of marriage', pulled sideways out of your ass, based on your own relativistic assumptions. And you've offered us nothing but your own relativistic assumptions to back up your made up 'natural law of marriage'.

With your assumption debunked by one simple fact: there is no marriage in nature.

You can't get around that. And what you described as 'marriage' is merely *******. Which obviously isn't the same thing. You can't tell the difference. A rational person could.

I'll take that concession; noted and accepted.

Whatever. The imaginary 'concession' like your sources, like your reasoning, like your audience....is just you citing yourself. Which is meaningless.

This post will be repeated about a million times everyday, until the SCOTUS scuttles the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

Laughing....no it won't. You're going to buckle like you always do. As your posting has no relevance on any court ruling.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Clementine]

The biggest threat from all this is the fact that government will censor speech and make it crime to express certain opinions.

Yeah, not gonna happen in a money = free speech nation. Stop wetting the bed, you can say how much you hate the homos all you like.

I have never and will never say that. I just believe that people who have strong peaceful religious beliefs shouldn't be forced to abandon them out of fear of punishment.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The conclusion is that you made up the 'natural law of marriage'

Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works. ... .

Now let's review to recall how we got here:

[So your conclusion is then that the argument is straw reasoning: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

The conclusion is that you made up the 'natural law of marriage', pulled sideways out of your ass, based on your own relativistic assumptions. And you've offered us nothing but your own relativistic assumptions to back up your made up 'natural law of marriage'.

With your assumption debunked by one simple fact: there is no marriage in nature.

So for there to be 'no natural laws governing marriage... that you can't get around.', all Relativism needs is for Humanity to NOT BE affiliated with NATURE... .

Let's review:

Just take a moment to examine this exchange, wherein a degenerate claimed that the Natural Standard of Marriage is false; meaning that as demonstrated above, the Homo-cult is wholly denying that nature has any laws governing human behavior and that such includes human physiology and the extension of such which we express through the word Marriage.

They claim that assigning Marriage as governed by Natural Law... is a function of pretense designed to distract you, the observer or "Reader" from reality or the issue at hand. This they advise you is an invalid logical construct known as "straw reasoning".

To which I simply replied by breaking the respective elements of Reality down into their respective components, which requires the opposition to either accept the existence of such, or to deny reality...

For your convenience, I repeat the exercise, below:

So the reasoning is that of straw?

Now the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

The reasoning further asserts the the emotional nature of the respective genders compliment the other.

Are you coming to reject that fact?

The reasoning further asserts that the physical and emotional joining common to the purpose of distinct genders; wherein two bodies join into one sustainable body, that such represents the design standard as nature intended, thus the natural standard of the joining of two bodies into one legally recognized body, which is OKA: Marriage.

Now... are you coming to reject that fact?

So... the question now becomes, 'what was the response?'

The first Militant simply conceded to the argument by refusing to even acknowledge the Argument and hasn't been seen in the Thread since.

The Second Militant, desperately wanted to ignore it, but its inability to deny its subjective need, precluded it from being able to ignore it and folded through the following EPIC FAILURE!:

Oh! So Natural Law is straw reasoning. Wouldn't Locke be shocked to learn that?

There's no 'natural law of marriage'. You made that up.

So your conclusion is then, that the argument is straw reasoning, which is to say: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

I'll take that concession; noted and accepted.

Well ok... Let's you and I break it down, shall we... (Reader you can go on to bed, as Skylar will now become OBSESSED with something else... ANYTHING ELSE, except this discussion.)

Again, your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself. ...

WOW~ So you're going to invoke straw reasoning, after just lamenting straw reasoning?

Wherein you're literally claiming that there are no "readers" observing this discussion through the processing of the written word?

Such is as Delusional as it is... HYSTERICAL! (In every sense of the WORD!)

Love the irony.

I'll take THAT concession; which is now formally noted and accepted.


So you've agreed that you conclude that the reasoning at issue is that of straw; a pretense which I conjured to escape the reality that is your need for sexual deviancy to be sexual normality?

Now, the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the emotional nature of the respective genders compliment the other.

Are you coming to reject that fact?

(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the physical and emotional joining common to the purpose of distinct genders; wherein two bodies join into one sustainable body, that such represents the design standard as nature intended, thus the natural standard of the joining of two bodies into one legally recognized body, which is OKA: Marriage.

There is no marriage in nature.

Given that Reality requires that Humanity does in fact exist in nature... this is incontestable, thus Skylar's only contest is refuted in undeniable terms.

Thus demonstrating Skylar, Faun and by extension, the homo-cult's in its entirety, must inevitably concede to the reality that in point of unassailable fact:

Marriage IS, the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And by virtue of that, there is no potential for a claim of inequity for those seeking to join with people of the same gender, who come to claim that their being disqualified from marriage, sets them inequitable.

And with that said, Skylar, Faun and the entirely of the Homo-Cult's 6th Concession... in a single post; a post wherein she lost the ENTIRETY of this debate... is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Silhouette]

Uh-oh Keys. "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"..

But, point well taken.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Uh-oh Keys. "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"..

But, point well taken.

Well I for one, am happy to let it go... but I will not simply allow those who failed to sustain their point, to simply pretend that they did not fail.

So... if by some miracle someone is capable of getting the homo-cult to stop pretending that they have an valid argument, I will stop demonstrating that their argument fails... and fails EPICALLY!

 

[Jarlaxle]

No, you're not, liar.

 

[Skylar]

So for there to be 'no natural laws governing marriage... that you can't get around.', all Relativism needs is for Humanity to NOT BE affiliated with NATURE... .

Marriage a social construct. We invented it to meet the needs of society. Some societies used romantic love as their basis of marriage. Others arranged marriages with the participants not even meeting until the wedding. Some had two participants. Others had polygamy. Some recognized marriage as a joining of equals. Some recognized marriage as an inherently dominant and subbordinate relationship.

And each of them was marriage. Marriage is our invention. And it is whatever we say it is. You've concluded that marriage is whatever YOU say it is, and that all law, culture, and civilization is bound to abide your assumptions.

Laughing......um, no. They're not. As all the same sex marriage in 37 of 50 states demonstrates. You are gloriously irrelevant to this process.

Given that Reality requires that Humanity does in fact exist in nature... this is incontestable, thus Skylar's only contest is refuted in undeniable terms.

Again, just because humanity exists in nature doesn't mean that any batshit you make up is 'natural law'. You're running into the same simple problem with your every argument:

Rejecting your subjective opinion isn't rejecting natural law. As your opinion isn't natural law. Its just your personal opinion. Which defines nothing objectively.

Back in reality, marriage is our invention. We made it up to serve our needs. And we define it. Not you.

Marriage IS, the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman. As same sex marriage in 37 of 50 States demonstrates. You insist none of it happening.

Shrugs...ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter.

 

[Skylar]

Circular Reasoning Works, because Circular Reasoning Works.

Rejecting your subjective personal opinion as defining objective natural law isn't 'circular reasoning.' As subjective is not objective. Your opinion doesn't define anything objectively.

You've merely doubled down on relativistic thinking, assuming that all are bound to whatever you imagine. Because you say so.

Um, nope. Your subjective opinion defines nothing objectively. Get used to the idea.

 

[Silhouette]

..Marriage a social construct. We invented it to meet the needs of society. Some societies used romantic love as their basis of marriage. Others arranged marriages with the participants not even meeting until the wedding. Some had two participants. Others had polygamy. Some recognized marriage as a joining of equals. Some recognized marriage as an inherently dominant and subbordinate relationship.

And each of them was marriage...

And all of them were for the benefit of children who would inherit the estate and who society needed to have both a mother and father (at least one of each, possibly more) for the best benefit of role modeling for their future citizens. Boys became men like their fathers. Girls became women like their mothers. Society still has that pressing need today.

"Gay marriages" do not provide that and never can. Hetero and polygamy-hetero do provide that. So we'd do better legalizing polygamy before gay marriage for the most important people involved in marriage: children.

But even polygamy waters-down the (usually) the father/child contact factor so its why we don't have it in our society. You can see it in the Browns of Utah. Kody almost never spends individual time with any of his kids; even when they're in the hospital. He just doesn't have the time. Likewise, in a lesbian household, the father never ever will spend a single moment with any of the children. And in a gay male household, no mother will ever be there for the children. We as a society have the right to reject those conditions on behalf of our collective-wards: children. Children cannot vote so we adults must act to protect thim in this matter.

 

[Faun]

..Marriage a social construct. We invented it to meet the needs of society. Some societies used romantic love as their basis of marriage. Others arranged marriages with the participants not even meeting until the wedding. Some had two participants. Others had polygamy. Some recognized marriage as a joining of equals. Some recognized marriage as an inherently dominant and subbordinate relationship.

And each of them was marriage...

And all of them were for the benefit of children who would inherit the estate and who society needed to have both a mother and father (at least one of each, possibly more) for the best benefit of role modeling for their future citizens. Boys became men like their fathers. Girls became women like their mothers. Society still has that pressing need today.

"Gay marriages" do not provide that and never can. Hetero and polygamy-hetero do provide that. So we'd do better legalizing polygamy before gay marriage for the most important people involved in marriage: children.

But even polygamy waters-down the (usually) the father/child contact factor so its why we don't have it in our society. You can see it in the Browns of Utah. Kody almost never spends individual time with any of his kids; even when they're in the hospital. He just doesn't have the time. Likewise, in a lesbian household, the father never ever will spend a single moment with any of the children. And in a gay male household, no mother will ever be there for the children. We as a society have the right to reject those conditions on behalf of our collective-wards: children. Children cannot vote so we adults must act to protect thim in this matter.

America is acting to protect children. And as a society, we are leaning towards making gay couples an acceptable alternative for raising children who would otherwise go unadopted or remain a foster child in the care of the state. Don't forget, your neanderthal thinking has become the minority position in this country. Most have moved on beyond the hatred you can't let go of.

 

[Silhouette]

Not providing a father to a boy or a mother to a girl is in no way an "acceptable alternative" as "parents" in marriage. The states see no advantage of turning out a product for their money (tax breaks incentives for married couples) that is predicted to be a drag upon society. Read the study linked in this OP: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The study of over 2,000 young adults, self reporting as either boys who didn't know a father or girls who didn't know a mother, concludes that over 60% of the respondents, self-reporting without the influence of their parent present said that they experience massive depression, a feeling of not belonging, suicidal thoughts, drug addiction and indigence.

Why would any state want to incentivize those conditions "as married"?? A gay marriage is physically incapable of providing a father to boys or a mother to girls 50% of the time: guaranteed. And they will always, 100% of the time deprive any children involved of the complimentary gender necessary and vital to offer a role model or a sounding board (whichever applies) to help those kids adjust to a funtional adult world where both men and women exist.

 

[mdk]

Sil lying about the findings in The Prince's Trust?! Must be a day that ends in Y.