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

[danielpalos]

The benefit, very simply put Skylar, is that boys get fathers and girls get mothers 100% of the time in regular marriage. Redacted marriage (for homosexuals) boys get fathers and girls get mothers only 50% of the cases.

Life isn't fair, according to the right. Would having two fathers be preferable for income purposes?

We have basically two types of harm that can come to children:

1. Physical harm

2. Psychological harm.

Both of those have different subcategories and #1 can definitely bleed over into #2. The worse type of damage of course is psychological. Physical wounds can heal within six weeks. Psychological wounds linger for years, decades...a lifetime. As such, psychological wounds get first attention when considering the new experiment on redacting the word "marriage": "how will this affect kids psychologically"? Finances can be remedied and even a poor family that has a functioning structure and love can be happy even in the poorest circumstances. Aboriginal tribes come to mind here. They frequently have very few personal possessions but the families are happy, they take care of their own and life is generally good.

A boy needs a father and a girl needs a mother. The neo-redaction experiment of marriage known as "same-sex marriage" deprives boys of fathers and girls of mothers in its very structural form. This has been shown to be detrimental to children. Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum So even a sub-moron could predict that gay marriage will harm at least 50% of the kids involved just by its physical structure, all other things being equal.

So, whatever financial advantage you could cite, it does not mitigate properly the psychological damage even such well-heeled kids would experience by being taught by daily structural example that "the other gender doesn't matter in a functioning adult world". At some point, that daily message is going to cause big problems. Serial killers are born fed on that fodder. When a category of human being "doesn't matter", watch out... The first thing violence does is thingify the victim. Then it strikes. All it needs is a trigger event.

Men tend to earn 100 cents on the dollar as compared to women.

 

[Skylar]

The benefit, very simply put Skylar, is that boys get fathers and girls get mothers 100% of the time in regular marriage. Redacted marriage (for homosexuals) boys get fathers and girls get mothers only 50% of the cases.

Life isn't fair, according to the right. Would having two fathers be preferable for income purposes?

We have basically two types of harm that can come to children:

1. Physical harm

2. Psychological harm.

Both of those have different subcategories and #1 can definitely bleed over into #2. The worse type of damage of course is psychological. Physical wounds can heal within six weeks. Psychological wounds linger for years, decades...a lifetime. As such, psychological wounds get first attention when considering the new experiment on redacting the word "marriage": "how will this affect kids psychologically"? Finances can be remedied and even a poor family that has a functioning structure and love can be happy even in the poorest circumstances. Aboriginal tribes come to mind here. They frequently have very few personal possessions but the families are happy, they take care of their own and life is generally good.

A boy needs a father and a girl needs a mother. The neo-redaction experiment of marriage known as "same-sex marriage" deprives boys of fathers and girls of mothers in its very structural form. This has been shown to be detrimental to children. Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum So even a sub-moron could predict that gay marriage will harm at least 50% of the kids involved just by its physical structure, all other things being equal.

So, whatever financial advantage you could cite, it does not mitigate properly the psychological damage even such well-heeled kids would experience by being taught by daily structural example that "the other gender doesn't matter in a functioning adult world". At some point, that daily message is going to cause big problems. Serial killers are born fed on that fodder. When a category of human being "doesn't matter", watch out... The first thing violence does is thingify the victim. Then it strikes. All it needs is a trigger event.

Men tend to earn 100 cents on the dollar as compared to women.

Yeah, but women work fewer hours, tend to have less experience, less recent experience, pick fields that pay less, and prioritize flexibility and quality of life over working more hours.

Hell, even in businesses that women own, women pay themselves less than men who own businesses pay themselves.

 

[Seawytch]

Okay Sil...lets play "what if"...what if today at noon the law changes and I'm no longer legally married to my life partner. How is that better for our children. How does that help THEM?

 

[Skylar]

Okay Sil...lets play "what if"...what if today at noon the law changes and I'm no longer legally married to my life partner. How is that better for our children. How does that help THEM?

Get ready for Sil's Rick James impression with the word 'couch' replaced with 'your kids'.

 

[danielpalos]

The benefit, very simply put Skylar, is that boys get fathers and girls get mothers 100% of the time in regular marriage. Redacted marriage (for homosexuals) boys get fathers and girls get mothers only 50% of the cases.

Life isn't fair, according to the right. Would having two fathers be preferable for income purposes?

We have basically two types of harm that can come to children:

1. Physical harm

2. Psychological harm.

Both of those have different subcategories and #1 can definitely bleed over into #2. The worse type of damage of course is psychological. Physical wounds can heal within six weeks. Psychological wounds linger for years, decades...a lifetime. As such, psychological wounds get first attention when considering the new experiment on redacting the word "marriage": "how will this affect kids psychologically"? Finances can be remedied and even a poor family that has a functioning structure and love can be happy even in the poorest circumstances. Aboriginal tribes come to mind here. They frequently have very few personal possessions but the families are happy, they take care of their own and life is generally good.

A boy needs a father and a girl needs a mother. The neo-redaction experiment of marriage known as "same-sex marriage" deprives boys of fathers and girls of mothers in its very structural form. This has been shown to be detrimental to children. Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum So even a sub-moron could predict that gay marriage will harm at least 50% of the kids involved just by its physical structure, all other things being equal.

So, whatever financial advantage you could cite, it does not mitigate properly the psychological damage even such well-heeled kids would experience by being taught by daily structural example that "the other gender doesn't matter in a functioning adult world". At some point, that daily message is going to cause big problems. Serial killers are born fed on that fodder. When a category of human being "doesn't matter", watch out... The first thing violence does is thingify the victim. Then it strikes. All it needs is a trigger event.

Men tend to earn 100 cents on the dollar as compared to women.

Yeah, but women work fewer hours, tend to have less experience, less recent experience, pick fields that pay less, and prioritize flexibility and quality of life over working more hours.

Hell, even in businesses that women own, women pay themselves less than men who own businesses pay themselves.

In other words, any Thing wo-men can do, men can do better; i got it.

 

[Skylar]

The benefit, very simply put Skylar, is that boys get fathers and girls get mothers 100% of the time in regular marriage. Redacted marriage (for homosexuals) boys get fathers and girls get mothers only 50% of the cases.

Life isn't fair, according to the right. Would having two fathers be preferable for income purposes?

We have basically two types of harm that can come to children:

1. Physical harm

2. Psychological harm.

Both of those have different subcategories and #1 can definitely bleed over into #2. The worse type of damage of course is psychological. Physical wounds can heal within six weeks. Psychological wounds linger for years, decades...a lifetime. As such, psychological wounds get first attention when considering the new experiment on redacting the word "marriage": "how will this affect kids psychologically"? Finances can be remedied and even a poor family that has a functioning structure and love can be happy even in the poorest circumstances. Aboriginal tribes come to mind here. They frequently have very few personal possessions but the families are happy, they take care of their own and life is generally good.

A boy needs a father and a girl needs a mother. The neo-redaction experiment of marriage known as "same-sex marriage" deprives boys of fathers and girls of mothers in its very structural form. This has been shown to be detrimental to children. Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum So even a sub-moron could predict that gay marriage will harm at least 50% of the kids involved just by its physical structure, all other things being equal.

So, whatever financial advantage you could cite, it does not mitigate properly the psychological damage even such well-heeled kids would experience by being taught by daily structural example that "the other gender doesn't matter in a functioning adult world". At some point, that daily message is going to cause big problems. Serial killers are born fed on that fodder. When a category of human being "doesn't matter", watch out... The first thing violence does is thingify the victim. Then it strikes. All it needs is a trigger event.

Men tend to earn 100 cents on the dollar as compared to women.

Yeah, but women work fewer hours, tend to have less experience, less recent experience, pick fields that pay less, and prioritize flexibility and quality of life over working more hours.

Hell, even in businesses that women own, women pay themselves less than men who own businesses pay themselves.

In other words, any Thing wo-men can do, men can do better; i got it.

I've never said that a woman can't work longer hours. I'm saying on average, they don't. Same with experience, career choices, and paying themselves.

If a woman who owns a business chooses to pay herself less than a man who owns a business....how is that sexism?

 

[Silhouette]

Okay Sil...lets play "what if"...what if today at noon the law changes and I'm no longer legally married to my life partner. How is that better for our children. How does that help THEM?

I'm sure some type of exceptions will be made for those duped into believing they were legally married in the interim, with the stipulation that nobody else can use their precedent as a means to dictate to the democratic rule of their state that they too must also be allowed in the future to illegally marry...so don't worry about that...

Time will adjust that miscarriage of justice..

What is in question is the future of ALL children, not just the present time myopic-consideration of just your children at the cost of the collective-concept of children's rights in general. I'll paste another post I just made to explain that in detail here..

..Here, the poster "Skylar" had been repeatedly accusing me of "not caring about children"....from my position in this debate. It answers your specific question to the letter I believe:

I said:

"The child to Skylar only has value if it is caught up in a homosexual lifestyle. If it is caught up in a polygamist lifestyle or an incest lifestyle, or a monosexual lifestyle (single parents) then suddenly it's not such a big deal if its parent(s) have the perks of marriage."

You're the one talking about the effects of gay marriage on children. Yet the moment I ask you what benefits of denying marriage to same sex parents would create for their children...
.....suddenly you abandon the topic. These 11 words destroy your argument utterly and completely:

How does denying marriage to same sex parents benefit their children?
Run.

YOU just accused ME of using kids in this debate for political expediency. Yet when I REPEATEDLY point out to you that this is about ALL children and not just a tiny fraction of them (your example of kids caught up in gay lifestyles alone, apart from all other children, their rights and best interests collectively), you use THAT as "proof that Sil doesn't care about children".

Your bullshit is so thick, you deviousness so profound that it's hard to know where to start, really.

Depriving ANY boy of a father and ANY girl of a mother as an incentivized institution (marriage) is wrong and detrimental to them COLLECTIVELY, OVER TIME. And THAT is the issue I have a problem with. My issue compassionately considers ALL children in a wide time continuum. Yours craftily considers a tiny subfraction of the word "children" in the present day. The Court has to weigh which is more important between the two. Their actions stand to snowball our culture into an unforseeable future, but one that has dark forshadowings already: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum.

Your manipulation of semantics stands to hurt kids, bottom line. Proof that you do not actually care about the children you supposedly are advocating for. You are just using them as a hinge to catapult gays into shattering the word "marriage" come hell or high water in the process..
We aren't talking about just homosexuals, "their children". We are talking about ALL children into the future, because marraige more than any other institution stands to shape their future, and they cannot vote. So this topic takes on an extra sense of urgency.

Here are 23 words that destroy your argument utterly and completely:

How does a federal-mandate that institutionalizes the structural-deprivation of boys of fathers and girls of mothers help ALL children into the unseen future?

 

[Skylar]

Okay Sil...lets play "what if"...what if today at noon the law changes and I'm no longer legally married to my life partner. How is that better for our children. How does that help THEM?

I'm sure some type of exceptions will be made for those duped into believing they were legally married in the interim, with the stipulation that nobody else can use their precedent as a means to dictate to the democratic rule of their state that they too must also be allowed in the future to illegally marry...so don't worry about that...

Time will adjust that miscarriage of justice..

What is in question is the future of ALL children, not just the present time myopic-consideration of just your children at the cost of the collective-concept of children's rights in general. I'll paste another post I just made to explain that in detail here..

..Here, the poster "Skylar" had been repeatedly accusing me of "not caring about children"....from my position in this debate. It answers your specific question to the letter I believe:

I said:

"The child to Skylar only has value if it is caught up in a homosexual lifestyle. If it is caught up in a polygamist lifestyle or an incest lifestyle, or a monosexual lifestyle (single parents) then suddenly it's not such a big deal if its parent(s) have the perks of marriage."

Wow. 5 paragraphs of reply. And you never even came close to addressing her question. Let alone answering it:

"if today at noon the law changes and I'm no longer legally married to my life partner. How is that better for our children. How does that help THEM?"

There is no benefit to those children in denying their parents marriage. And you know it. While denying their parents marriage would hurt these children severely. And you know it.

But why would we ever do this Sea's kids?

 

[Skylar]

How does a federal-mandate that institutionalizes the structural-deprivation of boys of fathers and girls of mothers help ALL children into the unseen future?

How does same sex marriage deprive boys of fathers and girls of mothers? Remember, gays and lesbians are already having kids by the 10s of thousands.

If a lesbian couple is denied marriage, their kids don't suddenly have opposite sex parents. So nothing you're proposing will benefit the children of same sex couples. It will only hurt these children.

Why would we ever do this?

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and Sil......pretty much everyone has noticed that you're running from this question:

'How does denying marriage to same sex couples help their children?'

Your 'question' is loaded with assumptions. Mine isn't. And you can't answer. None of your ilk can.

Which is why you've lost 44 of 46 cases. And why things don't look particularly good for you in the USSC in June either. Your argument collapses when challenged. As it doesn't work.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, and Sil......pretty much everyone has noticed that you're running from this question:

'How does denying marriage to same sex couples help their children?'

Your 'question' is loaded with assumptions. Mine isn't. And you can't answer. None of your ilk can.

Which is why you've lost 44 of 46 cases. And why things don't look particularly good for you in the USSC in June either. Your argument collapses when challenged. As it doesn't work.

Did you spam three posts on the last page to be sure this one was lost?

Okay Sil...lets play "what if"...what if today at noon the law changes and I'm no longer legally married to my life partner. How is that better for our children. How does that help THEM?

I'm sure some type of exceptions will be made for those duped into believing they were legally married in the interim, with the stipulation that nobody else can use their precedent as a means to dictate to the democratic rule of their state that they too must also be allowed in the future to illegally marry...so don't worry about that...

Time will adjust that miscarriage of justice..

What is in question is the future of ALL children, not just the present time myopic-consideration of just your children at the cost of the collective-concept of children's rights in general. I'll paste another post I just made to explain that in detail here..

..Here, the poster "Skylar" had been repeatedly accusing me of "not caring about children"....from my position in this debate. It answers your specific question to the letter I believe:

I said:

"The child to Skylar only has value if it is caught up in a homosexual lifestyle. If it is caught up in a polygamist lifestyle or an incest lifestyle, or a monosexual lifestyle (single parents) then suddenly it's not such a big deal if its parent(s) have the perks of marriage."

You're the one talking about the effects of gay marriage on children. Yet the moment I ask you what benefits of denying marriage to same sex parents would create for their children...
.....suddenly you abandon the topic. These 11 words destroy your argument utterly and completely:

How does denying marriage to same sex parents benefit their children?
Run.

YOU just accused ME of using kids in this debate for political expediency. Yet when I REPEATEDLY point out to you that this is about ALL children and not just a tiny fraction of them (your example of kids caught up in gay lifestyles alone, apart from all other children, their rights and best interests collectively), you use THAT as "proof that Sil doesn't care about children".

Your bullshit is so thick, you deviousness so profound that it's hard to know where to start, really.

Depriving ANY boy of a father and ANY girl of a mother as an incentivized institution (marriage) is wrong and detrimental to them COLLECTIVELY, OVER TIME. And THAT is the issue I have a problem with. My issue compassionately considers ALL children in a wide time continuum. Yours craftily considers a tiny subfraction of the word "children" in the present day. The Court has to weigh which is more important between the two. Their actions stand to snowball our culture into an unforseeable future, but one that has dark forshadowings already: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum.

Your manipulation of semantics stands to hurt kids, bottom line. Proof that you do not actually care about the children you supposedly are advocating for. You are just using them as a hinge to catapult gays into shattering the word "marriage" come hell or high water in the process..
We aren't talking about just homosexuals, "their children". We are talking about ALL children into the future, because marraige more than any other institution stands to shape their future, and they cannot vote. So this topic takes on an extra sense of urgency.

Here are 23 words that destroy your argument utterly and completely:

How does a federal-mandate that institutionalizes the structural-deprivation of boys of fathers and girls of mothers help ALL children into the unseen future?

 

[Skylar]

Did you spam three posts on the last page to be sure this one was lost?

Um, Sil....the post you claim to be responding to isn't from this thread. I've already replied to you in the thread its from. You're simply spamming that huge block of text across multiple threads to avoid this simple question:

How does denying marriage to same sex couples benefit their children?

You have no answer. As there is none. Your proposals don't benefit these children. Only hurt them.

And you know that.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, and Sil......pretty much everyone has noticed that you're running from this question:

'How does denying marriage to same sex couples help their children?'

Your 'question' is loaded with assumptions. Mine isn't. And you can't answer. None of your ilk can.

Which is why you've lost 44 of 46 cases. And why things don't look particularly good for you in the USSC in June either. Your argument collapses when challenged. As it doesn't work.

Did you spam three posts on the last page to be sure this one was lost?

Okay Sil...lets play "what if"...what if today at noon the law changes and I'm no longer legally married to my life partner. How is that better for our children. How does that help THEM?

I'm sure some type of exceptions will be made for those duped into believing they were legally married in the interim, with the stipulation that nobody else can use their precedent as a means to dictate to the democratic rule of their state that they too must also be allowed in the future to illegally marry...so don't worry about that...

Time will adjust that miscarriage of justice..

What is in question is the future of ALL children, not just the present time myopic-consideration of just your children at the cost of the collective-concept of children's rights in general. I'll paste another post I just made to explain that in detail here..

..Here, the poster "Skylar" had been repeatedly accusing me of "not caring about children"....from my position in this debate. It answers your specific question to the letter I believe:

I said:

"The child to Skylar only has value if it is caught up in a homosexual lifestyle. If it is caught up in a polygamist lifestyle or an incest lifestyle, or a monosexual lifestyle (single parents) then suddenly it's not such a big deal if its parent(s) have the perks of marriage."

You're the one talking about the effects of gay marriage on children. Yet the moment I ask you what benefits of denying marriage to same sex parents would create for their children...
.....suddenly you abandon the topic. These 11 words destroy your argument utterly and completely:

How does denying marriage to same sex parents benefit their children?
Run.

YOU just accused ME of using kids in this debate for political expediency. Yet when I REPEATEDLY point out to you that this is about ALL children and not just a tiny fraction of them (your example of kids caught up in gay lifestyles alone, apart from all other children, their rights and best interests collectively), you use THAT as "proof that Sil doesn't care about children".

Your bullshit is so thick, you deviousness so profound that it's hard to know where to start, really.

Depriving ANY boy of a father and ANY girl of a mother as an incentivized institution (marriage) is wrong and detrimental to them COLLECTIVELY, OVER TIME. And THAT is the issue I have a problem with. My issue compassionately considers ALL children in a wide time continuum. Yours craftily considers a tiny subfraction of the word "children" in the present day. The Court has to weigh which is more important between the two. Their actions stand to snowball our culture into an unforseeable future, but one that has dark forshadowings already: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum.

Your manipulation of semantics stands to hurt kids, bottom line. Proof that you do not actually care about the children you supposedly are advocating for. You are just using them as a hinge to catapult gays into shattering the word "marriage" come hell or high water in the process..
We aren't talking about just homosexuals, "their children". We are talking about ALL children into the future, because marraige more than any other institution stands to shape their future, and they cannot vote. So this topic takes on an extra sense of urgency.

Here are 23 words that destroy your argument utterly and completely:

How does a federal-mandate that institutionalizes the structural-deprivation of boys of fathers and girls of mothers help ALL children into the unseen future?

How does depriving the children of gay parents, married parents help those children?

How does denying marriage to homosexuals help any other children?

 

[Seawytch]

Sil is starting from the false premise that children require a mother and father to be productive members of society.