Alabama SC orders judges to stop issuing homosexuals "marriage" licenses.

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So you are saying that because a child is growing up with homosexual parents that they are living a homosexual lifestyle? What twisted world do you live in? I suppose you have sex with your children in a heterosexual lifestyle? Living with gay people is not forcing the children to live as gays! Children don't care all they know is they have loving parents period! You also said that the neighbor kids would tell them and they would feel different? Umm so you support bullying of children because they may have gay parents? You blame the parents but not the bullies! Wow


I see more hate from heterosexuals then homosexuals. And most kids live in with heterosexual parents! So your kids learn to bully and hate! What a great parent you are! Loser

Yes, I am stating that homosexuals live a homosexual lifestyle.

Hard to wrap your twisted mind around that, huh. moron. You see more hate? Right, you make things up. Idiot.

Describe that for us if you can. I'm gay and this is my "lifestyle":

Get up, make coffee, surf internet.
Take shower, dress, wake kids, make lunches for kids
Take kids to school, go to work
Pick up son after practice (wife picked up daughter), go home
Eat dinner, help with homework, play video games or watch TV
Kiss wife, go to bed
Wash, rinse, repeat

Yes, displaying a sexual attraction to the same sex in front of children. Kissing, and going to bed with the same sex, just the opposite of what normal people do. Denying children a mother and father, another aspect of your homosexual lifestyle. Spending countless hours arguing on message boards while your 5 children suffer no father figure and are denied even your attention.

I bet you get a great tax break, seeings how it is tax time, I bet you even get more back then you pay in?

That's not a "lifestyle" darling, that's life. Kids with same sex parents aren't "denied" anything. They still have two parents which is what children need for the best outcomes.

I don't have five children, only two teenagers. I was a surrogate for another couple so three of the children I bore were not mine. And I don't spend "countless" hours on a message board, I spend a few hours in the morning while they are asleep and then on my lunch breaks at work. Trust me, if you ask our teenage children, they will tell you they get more than enough quality time with their parents.

Yes, I do get a tax break for being married and for having children. Don't you? No, it's not more than I put in...quite a bit less in fact, but that's the price of living in a developed society.

Children need a mother AND a father for their complete psychological rearing. To deprive them of either is to harm them because a man can't fulfill the role of a mother nor a woman the role of a father.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Can states with counties in their states still have "dry" counties? Where alcohol is not sold? Then why not SAY NO TO GAY AND LESBIAN MARRIAGES be ok.?

Because state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol are applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled out for exclusion. If state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol were applied only to Asian-Americans, for example, such measures would be in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Likewise, measures that seek only to prohibit same-sex couples from entering into marriage contracts are repugnant to the Constitution, as they authorize the unwarranted exclusion of gay Americans absent any rational, factual justification.

And no, alcoholics do not constitute a 'particular class of persons.'

So anyone can be married in America no questions asked?

Nope.

Nope what? Any body with a two sets of I.D. and a birth certificate or green card can get married then? Why can they ask questions if nobody is supposed to care?

Q: So anyone can be married in America no questions asked?

A: No.

If it's a "civil right" then who are you to deny anyone to marry? You can't claim it's a civil right for gays but not for everyone else.

 

[James Everett]

Because state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol are applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled out for exclusion. If state or local laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol were applied only to Asian-Americans, for example, such measures would be in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Likewise, measures that seek only to prohibit same-sex couples from entering into marriage contracts are repugnant to the Constitution, as they authorize the unwarranted exclusion of gay Americans absent any rational, factual justification.

And no, alcoholics do not constitute a 'particular class of persons.'

So anyone can be married in America no questions asked?

Nope.

Nope what? Any body with a two sets of I.D. and a birth certificate or green card can get married then? Why can they ask questions if nobody is supposed to care?

Q: So anyone can be married in America no questions asked?

A: No.

If it's a "civil right" then who are you to deny anyone to marry? You can't claim it's a civil right for gays but not for everyone else.

They would not be deprived of a civil right under a civil union, they just would not be allowed to label that civil union as a marriage because it does not meet the traditional or set legal definition of a marriage which is a contract between a man and a woman. They would no more be deprived of a civil right than anyone contracting to purchase a car under a purchase contract with payments and then attempting to call that purchase contract a marriage: It simply is NOT a marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

James, what do you think about this being a brand new social experiment with children involved? How any gay marriage automatically by virtue of its physical structure deprives 50% of kids involved of their own gender as a role model? Have you read the Prince's Trust survey yet? Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

My personal opinion and that of the clear and overwhelming majority of people in the US is that such a grand upheaval at such a base and vital level of society (marriage, the core of any society) should get AT LEAST a weigh in from the people of the self-governed states, instead of a command from the throne of 9 in DC, 2 of which are heavily and publicly displaying clear bias on the concept of dismantling the word "marriage" from its thousands-years-old meaning to ????...equality dontcha know...

 

[James Everett]

James, what do you think about this being a brand new social experiment with children involved? How any gay marriage automatically by virtue of its physical structure deprives 50% of kids involved of their own gender as a role model? Have you read the Prince's Trust survey yet? Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

My personal opinion and that of the clear and overwhelming majority of people in the US is that such a grand upheaval at such a base and vital level of society (marriage, the core of any society) should get AT LEAST a weigh in from the people of the self-governed states, instead of a command from the throne of 9 in DC, 2 of which are heavily and publicly displaying clear bias on the concept of dismantling the word "marriage" from its thousands-years-old meaning to ????...equality dontcha know...

The welfare of children is a different subject, as it involves the rearing of children and their best interest. The best interest of a child is not served in many ways, one being that of single parents whether it be by the passing of a mother or father leaving the child without that role model: What then? Should the child be deprived of his only living biological parent and placed up for adoption of a married couple? Many a mother or father are poor role models and instill the wrong morals in their children in many ways. I myself as a Christian man feel that I have missed the mark in my own example as a proper role model, in that I spoil my children, which deprives them of the good feeling of earning something rather than having it handed to them through my hard work. I must admit that I have not read Prince's Trust Survey. The question concerning the best interest of a child would, or should include many, many considerations in adoption, or a separation set of parents wherein one leaves husband or wife for a same sex partner, that is to determine the fitness parent, parents, or potential parents in the case of adoption.
There is just so many factors to consider when a child is involved, which should be a separate issue than that of the definition of a marriage.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Government involvement in marriage originated with church/state intermingling

Actually it had something to do with taxation. In that case, government imposed itself on the church.

Actually, the church was the first body to start passing laws on the public regarding marriage.

Don't be so dense. I was referring to the American government, not the Church of England. This was as it relates to us American citizens living in the United States. Churches are and were not allowed to pass law regarding government, and government is not supposed to pass law regarding religion, or in this case, marriage.

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

Ronald Reagan

 

[Conservative65]

Interesting that you complained about that other person for language then your last words were to call him/her a POS. Kind of hypocritical, don't you think?

No.

Didn't think you would admit your hypocrisy. I know people like you don't think you are hypocrites. That would be wrong but you can continue to be a fool if you want. You support a bunch of abnormal faggots marrying and have proven that already.

I support the right of adults who are of the same gender to marry.

You support calling people f*ggots- just like racists call people they don't approve of n*ggers.....and k*kes....and c*nts.....

You are the same.

I'm trying to figure out the racial aspect of calling someone a c*nt. Is there some racist insult I'm unaware of that looks just like the word with a u?

LOL....how about I revise that?

He supports calling people f*ggots- just like racists and misogynists call people they don't approve of n*ggers.....and k*kes....and c*nts.....

I call people what they are. In your case, you're a ****** lover.

I bet you've suck a few in your lifetime.

 

[Silhouette]

James, what do you think about this being a brand new social experiment with children involved? How any gay marriage automatically by virtue of its physical structure deprives 50% of kids involved of their own gender as a role model? Have you read the Prince's Trust survey yet? Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
My personal opinion and that of the clear and overwhelming majority of people in the US is that such a grand upheaval at such a base and vital level of society (marriage, the core of any society) should get AT LEAST a weigh in from the people of the self-governed states, instead of a command from the throne of 9 in DC, 2 of which are heavily and publicly displaying clear bias on the concept of dismantling the word "marriage" from its thousands-years-old meaning to ????...equality dontcha know...

The welfare of children is a different subject, as it involves the rearing of children and their best interest. The best interest of a child is not served in many ways, one being that of single parents whether it be by the passing of a mother or father leaving the child without that role model: What then? Should the child be deprived of his only living biological parent and placed up for adoption of a married couple?...

It's not a question of who can raise a child, but rather who should be enticed by a state to raise a child for the best formative environment. Otherwise a state has no interest in marriage. Visit a family court to see who gets more weight in considerations: adults or children of a marriage..

 

[Montrovant]

James, what do you think about this being a brand new social experiment with children involved? How any gay marriage automatically by virtue of its physical structure deprives 50% of kids involved of their own gender as a role model? Have you read the Prince's Trust survey yet? Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
My personal opinion and that of the clear and overwhelming majority of people in the US is that such a grand upheaval at such a base and vital level of society (marriage, the core of any society) should get AT LEAST a weigh in from the people of the self-governed states, instead of a command from the throne of 9 in DC, 2 of which are heavily and publicly displaying clear bias on the concept of dismantling the word "marriage" from its thousands-years-old meaning to ????...equality dontcha know...

The welfare of children is a different subject, as it involves the rearing of children and their best interest. The best interest of a child is not served in many ways, one being that of single parents whether it be by the passing of a mother or father leaving the child without that role model: What then? Should the child be deprived of his only living biological parent and placed up for adoption of a married couple?...

It's not a question of who can raise a child, but rather who should be enticed by a state to raise a child for the best formative environment. Otherwise a state has no interest in marriage. Visit a family court to see who gets more weight in considerations: adults or children of a marriage..

That is entirely dependent on what part of the marriage (or divorce) is being discussed. It also ignores married couples with no children. The state could easily restrict marriage benefits to couples who give birth or adopt children, but does not. What is your explanation for that?

 

[Silhouette]

Conservative appears on behalf of Syriusly again, hurling sympathy engendering slurs that only an LGBT person would dare utter in grand theater..

 

[Conservative65]

Add in that "gay marriage" harms 50% of the kids i

How does gay marriage harm 50% of kids?

Specifically.

What children?

Homosexuals are parenting children right now- unmarried.

How does those parents marrying harm any children?

Silhouette was mistaken. He should have said 100%. It's a tragedy when a child is deprived of a father or a mother through death, imprisonmnent or other unfortunate vicissitude, but to deliberately set up a situation that excludes a father or a mother is intentional cruelty. Same sex couples who suck an innocent child into their fantasy are as immoral as mothers who get knocked up by somebody who they will later describe as "out of the picture" and then have to answer painful questions their children ask later. "Why don't I have a daddy?" These amoral assholes think that they were the sun, moon, and stars for their children and are offended when they find out they're not enough. Same sex couples who victimize children at the very least are guilty of the same. Then there's the exposure to a sexually depraved lifestyle......

And yet study after study to look at the health of children of same sex parents show they are fine.

And of course, gays and lesbians are having kids anyway. Denying these parents marriage doesn't mean that their children magically have opposite sex parents. All it means is that they can never have married parents.

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

How does teaching a child that they can have two daddies or two mommies help children? It doesn't. It teaches them that something absolutely abnormal is OK.

And of course, gays and lesbians are having kids anyway. Denying these parents marriage doesn't mean that their children magically have opposite sex parents. All it means is that they can never have married parents.

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

Two fags or lesbians aren't having kids with each other. It simply isn't possible.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How does gay marriage harm 50% of kids?

Specifically.

What children?

Homosexuals are parenting children right now- unmarried.

How does those parents marrying harm any children?

Silhouette was mistaken. He should have said 100%. It's a tragedy when a child is deprived of a father or a mother through death, imprisonmnent or other unfortunate vicissitude, but to deliberately set up a situation that excludes a father or a mother is intentional cruelty. Same sex couples who suck an innocent child into their fantasy are as immoral as mothers who get knocked up by somebody who they will later describe as "out of the picture" and then have to answer painful questions their children ask later. "Why don't I have a daddy?" These amoral assholes think that they were the sun, moon, and stars for their children and are offended when they find out they're not enough. Same sex couples who victimize children at the very least are guilty of the same. Then there's the exposure to a sexually depraved lifestyle......

And yet study after study to look at the health of children of same sex parents show they are fine.

And of course, gays and lesbians are having kids anyway. Denying these parents marriage doesn't mean that their children magically have opposite sex parents. All it means is that they can never have married parents.

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

How does teaching a child that they can have two daddies or two mommies help children? It doesn't. It teaches them that something absolutely abnormal is OK.

And of course, gays and lesbians are having kids anyway. Denying these parents marriage doesn't mean that their children magically have opposite sex parents. All it means is that they can never have married parents.

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

Two fags or lesbians aren't having kids with each other. It simply isn't possible.

Further evidence of the fear, ignorance, and hate common to most on the right.

 

[Silhouette]

Conservative isn't a real poster. It is Syriusly's sock puppet that hurls slurs only an LGBT stand in would dare to in order to engender sympathy for their cult. Same identical quoting/posting style as Syriusly..

That is entirely dependent on what part of the marriage (or divorce) is being discussed. It also ignores married couples with no children. The state could easily restrict marriage benefits to couples who give birth or adopt children, but does not. What is your explanation for that?

That the state anticipates statistically that in any marriage children by birth, adoption, fostering or grandparenting will arrive. And the statistics bear that out. The state is not being heavy handed demanding children be produced. That's in keeping with freedom and liberty. But children statistically arrive nevertheless.

Marriage is a statistical gamble that states make by extending lures to entice the best formative environment for the most important people they are banking will come as a result of marriage: children. When men and women snuggle at night, the little scamps have a way of showing up on the scene. Or two childless potential parents long for those little arrivals as they age and none have come and are so inspired to adopt or foster as mother and father.

There is no mandate for children in marriage...but there is most definitely a calculated expectation of them. And so, the state incentivizes who it chooses to provide the best environment for them. The brand new social experiment requires the debate and weigh in of the goverened to see whether or not children should be lab rats on behalf of neo-marriage.

vvv You've been reported again Conservative vvv

 

[Conservative65]

Silhouette was mistaken. He should have said 100%. It's a tragedy when a child is deprived of a father or a mother through death, imprisonmnent or other unfortunate vicissitude, but to deliberately set up a situation that excludes a father or a mother is intentional cruelty. Same sex couples who suck an innocent child into their fantasy are as immoral as mothers who get knocked up by somebody who they will later describe as "out of the picture" and then have to answer painful questions their children ask later. "Why don't I have a daddy?" These amoral assholes think that they were the sun, moon, and stars for their children and are offended when they find out they're not enough. Same sex couples who victimize children at the very least are guilty of the same. Then there's the exposure to a sexually depraved lifestyle......

And yet study after study to look at the health of children of same sex parents show they are fine.

And of course, gays and lesbians are having kids anyway. Denying these parents marriage doesn't mean that their children magically have opposite sex parents. All it means is that they can never have married parents.

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

How does teaching a child that they can have two daddies or two mommies help children? It doesn't. It teaches them that something absolutely abnormal is OK.

And of course, gays and lesbians are having kids anyway. Denying these parents marriage doesn't mean that their children magically have opposite sex parents. All it means is that they can never have married parents.

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

Two fags or lesbians aren't having kids with each other. It simply isn't possible.

Further evidence of the fear, ignorance, and hate common to most on the right.

It's a biologically accurate statement you dumb son of a *****.

 

[elektra]

A man, cannot marry a man, and a woman cannot marry a woman, who is being discriminated against as the law is applied equally between all men who wish to marry another man, and all women who wish to marry another woman.

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
​

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

Yes, the argument for gay marriage can nit stand on its own merit, you must attempt to draw a parallel to a distant point in history, as explained by experts and studies.

Same sex marriage, without obfuscation, distortions and lies, fails all tests.

 

[Syriusly]

And yet study after study to look at the health of children of same sex parents show they are fine.

And of course, gays and lesbians are having kids anyway. Denying these parents marriage doesn't mean that their children magically have opposite sex parents. All it means is that they can never have married parents.

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

How does teaching a child that they can have two daddies or two mommies help children? It doesn't. It teaches them that something absolutely abnormal is OK.

And of course, gays and lesbians are having kids anyway. Denying these parents marriage doesn't mean that their children magically have opposite sex parents. All it means is that they can never have married parents.

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

Two fags or lesbians aren't having kids with each other. It simply isn't possible.

Further evidence of the fear, ignorance, and hate common to most on the right.

It's a biologically accurate statement you dumb son of a *****.

It is a biologically irrelevant statement, and the response was accurate and appropriate.

Homosexuals are parenting children- some they give birth to, some they use surrogacy for, and some they adopt.

And regardless of how they have their children- they are the parents of those children.

No matter how much you dumb son's of bitches homophobic bigots want to deny it.

Now- how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

 

[Syriusly]

A man, cannot marry a man, and a woman cannot marry a woman, who is being discriminated against as the law is applied equally between all men who wish to marry another man, and all women who wish to marry another woman.

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."
​

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

Yes, the argument for gay marriage can nit stand on its own merit, you must attempt to draw a parallel to a distant point in history, as explained by experts and studies.

Same sex marriage, without obfuscation, distortions and lies, fails all tests.

Same sex marriage 'passes all the tests'- because as we all know- there is no test required to get married.

There hasn't been a rational argument against same gender marriage yet- just the whining of bigots.

 

[elektra]

Yes, the argument for gay marriage can nit stand on its own merit, you must attempt to draw a parallel to a distant point in history, as explained by experts and studies.

Same sex marriage, without obfuscation, distortions and lies, fails all tests.

Same sex marriage 'passes all the tests'- because as we all know- there is no test required to get married.

There hasn't been a rational argument against same gender marriage yet- just the whining of bigots.[/QUOTE]
You are the biggest bigot here, tell us again how you taught your kids to be repulsed by simple kissing and even more repulsed by sex. How is it your kids are repulsed by what comes natural, and feel free and tell us how you stated that teaching kids about homosexual sex which you support, is a perversion.

Care for me to dig up your posts, again, so that you twist and bend and try to wiggle your way out of your own hypocrisy and ignorance.

Yes, you lost the argument, now all you got is a weak flame. And why, cause I pointed out your bigotry, and being the weak ill educated fool you are, you must label others, or project, calling other's what you are, BIGOT.

 

[elektra]

That's not a "lifestyle" darling, that's life. Kids with same sex parents aren't "denied" anything. They still have two parents which is what children need for the best outcomes.

I don't have five children, only two teenagers. I was a surrogate for another couple so three of the children I bore were not mine. And I don't spend "countless" hours on a message board, I spend a few hours in the morning while they are asleep and then on my lunch breaks at work. Trust me, if you ask our teenage children, they will tell you they get more than enough quality time with their parents.

Yes, I do get a tax break for being married and for having children. Don't you? No, it's not more than I put in...quite a bit less in fact, but that's the price of living in a developed society.

Taxes, just testing you, to see if you would lie or not, with the earned income credit, you get more than you put in unless you lied here about your deduction, it was 5, right.

As far as the rest that you deny, that living as a homosexual is not a lifestyle, and that kids without fathers are not denied a father, I am just here using you as an example for all to see, how crazy you really are.

So easy you expose yourself.

 

[Montrovant]

Conservative isn't a real poster. It is Syriusly's sock puppet that hurls slurs only an LGBT stand in would dare to in order to engender sympathy for their cult. Same identical quoting/posting style as Syriusly..

That is entirely dependent on what part of the marriage (or divorce) is being discussed. It also ignores married couples with no children. The state could easily restrict marriage benefits to couples who give birth or adopt children, but does not. What is your explanation for that?

That the state anticipates statistically that in any marriage children by birth, adoption, fostering or grandparenting will arrive. And the statistics bear that out. The state is not being heavy handed demanding children be produced. That's in keeping with freedom and liberty. But children statistically arrive nevertheless.

Marriage is a statistical gamble that states make by extending lures to entice the best formative environment for the most important people they are banking will come as a result of marriage: children. When men and women snuggle at night, the little scamps have a way of showing up on the scene. Or two childless potential parents long for those little arrivals as they age and none have come and are so inspired to adopt or foster as mother and father.

There is no mandate for children in marriage...but there is most definitely a calculated expectation of them. And so, the state incentivizes who it chooses to provide the best environment for them. The brand new social experiment requires the debate and weigh in of the goverened to see whether or not children should be lab rats on behalf of neo-marriage.

vvv You've been reported again Conservative vvv

Only someone trying to engender sympathy for gays would call someone a ******? Where do you live? That's certainly an insult I've heard many times in my life and not once do I think it was used to try and generate sympathy.

As to marriage being a 'statistical gamble', what kind of inanity is that? Would it be difficult for states to only provide marriage benefits to couples with children? What are the statistics on infertile couples who marry, how often do they adopt or foster children? And what about divorce? Divorce is fairly easy to obtain, why is that if the state is so compelled to provide the best environment for children? And do you have any evidence that gay couples are any less likely to have or adopt children than heterosexual couples who cannot conceive?

You continuously create these supposed reasons behind marriage which clearly do not fit with the rules surrounding marriage in this country.