Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[beagle9]

Sil, then don't marry someone of your own sex.

Easy as that eh ? Now you lib's always talk about the collective, and how everyone should just join hands and sing we're all just so "happy together" now, but how do you think about this in respect to peoples strong religious beliefs on the subject, otherwise how are people supposed to somehow or continue to separate themselves upon their religious grounds in this nation anymore, and then to keep their children safe from that which they don't agree with nor should they ever sanction or except as normal within their lives as according to their beliefs ? Got an easy answer for that one maybe ? The marrying isn't the whole problem, but it's the flaunting of something that people find offensive on a grand scale once sanctioned like that, where as they feel that they are being forced by federal judges to agree to these things against their families or communities majority will, and that is a big problem for those whom think in this way.

 

[ricechickie]

^^ similar to the argument against interracial marriage.

People didn't want their children to see that kind of race-mixing being flaunted.

I don't know if anyone told you, there is no right to not be offended.

 

[Rikurzhen]

We should call Oranges, Lemons.

Lemons sell for more and everything has the same rights.

I should not suffer the price of oranges when I sell them, the are equal to lemons.

Why would anyone care, I make more money for Oranges, even though you thought you bought Lemons.

They are both citrus so it's only equal to call oranges, lemons.

Yeah cause lemons and oranges can't both be fruits there's only room on this lemon phobic planet for orange fruit.

His point was that you cannot call people who do gay sex "father/mother" "husband/wife". For they are not and will never be. States have a right to incentivized father/mother husband/wife. And this right is theirs for the sake of children's welfare. Children have a right to have father/mother be incentivized and the only legal couple who may raise them. Children's rights trump any alleged "gay rights" when it comes to marriage.

there is no law stating a child must have a Father and a mother. You are making things up

The UN Convention on the Human Rights of the Child.

 

[Silhouette]

We should call Oranges, Lemons.

Lemons sell for more and everything has the same rights.

I should not suffer the price of oranges when I sell them, the are equal to lemons.

Why would anyone care, I make more money for Oranges, even though you thought you bought Lemons.

They are both citrus so it's only equal to call oranges, lemons.

Yeah cause lemons and oranges can't both be fruits there's only room on this lemon phobic planet for orange fruit.

His point was that you cannot call people who do gay sex "father/mother" "husband/wife". For they are not and will never be. States have a right to incentivized father/mother husband/wife. And this right is theirs for the sake of children's welfare. Children have a right to have father/mother be incentivized and the only legal couple who may raise them. Children's rights trump any alleged "gay rights" when it comes to marriage.

there is no law stating a child must have a Father and a mother. You are making things up

The UN Convention on the Human Rights of the Child.

That law is being debated right now in the US. It's not if the child MUST have a mother and father. It's whether or not a state's discreet community decides this is the situation best suited to be incentivized for the sake of children in general into future generations.

That's one topic that often gets neglected in these discussions: how far reaching and derailing of society's fabric over time the mandating of gay marriage might become. The LGBT cult wants to encapsulate this discussion "in the here and now"...calling their behaviors "deserving of civil rights status". They most definitely do not want a discussion on the long-range effects of a society mainstreaming a gay subculture via marriage. Institutionalizing it, de facto.

Watch the strawmen pop up now that I brought it up.

 

[Rikurzhen]

We should call Oranges, Lemons.

Lemons sell for more and everything has the same rights.

I should not suffer the price of oranges when I sell them, the are equal to lemons.

Why would anyone care, I make more money for Oranges, even though you thought you bought Lemons.

They are both citrus so it's only equal to call oranges, lemons.

Yeah cause lemons and oranges can't both be fruits there's only room on this lemon phobic planet for orange fruit.

His point was that you cannot call people who do gay sex "father/mother" "husband/wife". For they are not and will never be. States have a right to incentivized father/mother husband/wife. And this right is theirs for the sake of children's welfare. Children have a right to have father/mother be incentivized and the only legal couple who may raise them. Children's rights trump any alleged "gay rights" when it comes to marriage.

there is no law stating a child must have a Father and a mother. You are making things up

The UN Convention on the Human Rights of the Child.

That law is being debated right now in the US. It's not if the child MUST have a mother and father. It's whether or not a state's discreet community decides this is the situation best suited to be incentivized for the sake of children in general into future generations.

That's one topic that often gets neglected in these discussions: how far reaching and derailing of society's fabric over time the mandating of gay marriage might become. The LGBT cult wants to encapsulate this discussion "in the here and now"...calling their behaviors "deserving of civil rights status". They most definitely do not want a discussion on the long-range effects of a society mainstreaming a gay subculture via marriage. Institutionalizing it, de facto.

Watch the strawmen pop up now that I brought it up.

A child DOES have a mother and a father. There is no law which declares that they MUST have a mother and a father. The UN Convention on the Human Rights of the Child declares that a child has a human right to be know and be raised by his mother and father whenever possible. Divorce happens, family breakup happens, etc these are casualties of life. What is wrong is to treat the child as a commodity, sperm donation for instance, deprives the child of his right to be raised by his father. Here's how this differs from divorce or single parenthood - with sperm donation the violation of the child's human rights began before the child was even conceived, it was done with aforethought, but with a divorce or death, the child wasn't brought into the world with the intent of depriving the child of his human rights to know and be raised by his parents.

What I've just written is at the heart of the European decision to limit the actions of homosexuals. The Europeans are protecting family and children's human rights. This particular debate is not really getting any traction here in the US. People here seem to think it is normal to go shopping for sperm.

 

[ricechickie]

Perhaps this is slightly off track, but it seems to fit this general discussion.

Does an organ donation recipient have the "right" to know the donor?

 

[Plasmaball]

We should call Oranges, Lemons.

Lemons sell for more and everything has the same rights.

I should not suffer the price of oranges when I sell them, the are equal to lemons.

Why would anyone care, I make more money for Oranges, even though you thought you bought Lemons.

They are both citrus so it's only equal to call oranges, lemons.

Yeah cause lemons and oranges can't both be fruits there's only room on this lemon phobic planet for orange fruit.

His point was that you cannot call people who do gay sex "father/mother" "husband/wife". For they are not and will never be. States have a right to incentivized father/mother husband/wife. And this right is theirs for the sake of children's welfare. Children have a right to have father/mother be incentivized and the only legal couple who may raise them. Children's rights trump any alleged "gay rights" when it comes to marriage.

there is no law stating a child must have a Father and a mother. You are making things up

The UN Convention on the Human Rights of the Child.

wow....you went for the U.N....how funny

 

[Rikurzhen]

Perhaps this is slightly off track, but it seems to fit this general discussion.

Does an organ donation recipient have the "right" to know the donor?

I want to see if you've thought this through. Please go on and expand on your thought.

 

[Rikurzhen]

We should call Oranges, Lemons.

Lemons sell for more and everything has the same rights.

I should not suffer the price of oranges when I sell them, the are equal to lemons.

Why would anyone care, I make more money for Oranges, even though you thought you bought Lemons.

They are both citrus so it's only equal to call oranges, lemons.

Yeah cause lemons and oranges can't both be fruits there's only room on this lemon phobic planet for orange fruit.

His point was that you cannot call people who do gay sex "father/mother" "husband/wife". For they are not and will never be. States have a right to incentivized father/mother husband/wife. And this right is theirs for the sake of children's welfare. Children have a right to have father/mother be incentivized and the only legal couple who may raise them. Children's rights trump any alleged "gay rights" when it comes to marriage.

there is no law stating a child must have a Father and a mother. You are making things up

The UN Convention on the Human Rights of the Child.

wow....you went for the U.N....how funny

Funny, you mean funny like the Geneva Convention funny?

 

[ricechickie]

I want to see if you've thought this through. Please go on and expand on your thought.

I haven't thought it through at all. It simply occurred to me, as things do in conversation.

I was wondering, because that is a new biological component being introduced into one's body. Of course, it doesn't change their DNA, nor, despite some popular fiction claiming otherwise, does it change one's personality.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I want to see if you've thought this through. Please go on and expand on your thought.

I haven't thought it through at all. It simply occurred to me, as things do in conversation.

I was wondering, because that is a new biological component being introduced into one's body. Of course, it doesn't change their DNA, nor, despite some popular fiction claiming otherwise, does it change one's personality.

A liver transplant will save your life but your donated liver doesn't contribute to defining you. Sperm and egg though are at the very heart of both creating you and defining you. You would, very literally, be a completely different person if another man had impregnated your mother. You can see the profound consequences which arise from that observation, right? Organ donation doesn't really map all too well in this debate.

 

[ricechickie]

And yet, while biology defines you somewhat, so does your environment.

 

[Rikurzhen]

And yet, while biology defines you somewhat, so does your environment.

Seeing how I'm the only one arguing the biology position in this thread, I can safely safe that I'm not denying that environment has a role.

The problem is that once a person's genetic heritage is stolen from them it can't be unstolen. It's like a woman who suffers a brutal rape can't be unraped, can't have that trauma erased from her.

 

[ricechickie]

Seeing how I'm the only one arguing the biology position in this thread, I can safely safe that I'm not denying that environment has a role.

The problem is that once a person's genetic heritage is stolen from them it can't be unstolen. It's like a woman who suffers a brutal rape can't be unraped, can't have that trauma erased from her.

A person's genetic heritage can't be stolen. It is in their DNA. However, the knowledge of such can be. And yes, it can be unstolen, if a person can find out about their biological family.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

His point was that you cannot call people who do gay sex "father/mother" "husband/wife". For they are not and will never be. States have a right to incentivized father/mother husband/wife. And this right is theirs for the sake of children's welfare. Children have a right to have father/mother be incentivized and the only legal couple who may raise them. Children's rights trump any alleged "gay rights" when it comes to marriage.


Nonsense.


States have no 'right' to disadvantage a class of persons predicated solely on animus toward that class of persons. (Romer v. Evans (1996)).


Having failed to deny gay Americans their civil liberties in the courts, those hostile to same-sex couples seek instead to contrive and propagate the lie that children living in homes headed by same-sex parents are somehow 'at risk,' when in fact nothing could be further from the truth, and to attempt to do so is nothing more than desperate demagoguery.


Children's rights are in no way 'violated' when living in a home headed by same-sex parents; children need love and attention to flourish – and that can be provided by any loving, attentive parent, be it in a single parent home, opposite-sex parent home, or same-sex parent home.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Seeing how I'm the only one arguing the biology position in this thread, I can safely safe that I'm not denying that environment has a role.

The problem is that once a person's genetic heritage is stolen from them it can't be unstolen. It's like a woman who suffers a brutal rape can't be unraped, can't have that trauma erased from her.

A person's genetic heritage can't be stolen. It is in their DNA. However, the knowledge of such can be. And yes, it can be unstolen, if a person can find out about their biological family.

If you put an heirloom necklace into an indestructible safe and then lose the combination to that safe, do you still, in a meaningful way, still possess that necklace? Or if you're Rose Dawson, a surviving passenger from the Titanic, and you own the Heart of the Ocean diamond necklace, do you still own that necklace after you've dropped it overboard and it now rests on the bottom of the Atlantic?

My point is that, of course, you are what your DNA makes you, but your ancestral heritage and knowing who you are are dependent on you being able to contextualize the abstract. For instance, if you're adopted you still have your dna but your birth siblings who are raised by your natural parents also know that mom got breast cancer and the daughters are extra vigilant as adults while you are unaware of the risk you face. This is just one aspect, health, but the more meaningful aspect to those who've been hurt this way lies in personality and family and connections to past generations. That's all stolen from these people and it decouples them from knowing their place in the world.

 

[Plasmaball]

We should call Oranges, Lemons.

Lemons sell for more and everything has the same rights.

I should not suffer the price of oranges when I sell them, the are equal to lemons.

Why would anyone care, I make more money for Oranges, even though you thought you bought Lemons.

They are both citrus so it's only equal to call oranges, lemons.

Yeah cause lemons and oranges can't both be fruits there's only room on this lemon phobic planet for orange fruit.

His point was that you cannot call people who do gay sex "father/mother" "husband/wife". For they are not and will never be. States have a right to incentivized father/mother husband/wife. And this right is theirs for the sake of children's welfare. Children have a right to have father/mother be incentivized and the only legal couple who may raise them. Children's rights trump any alleged "gay rights" when it comes to marriage.

there is no law stating a child must have a Father and a mother. You are making things up

The UN Convention on the Human Rights of the Child.

wow....you went for the U.N....how funny

Funny, you mean funny like the Geneva Convention funny?

Funny like when there was a meme going around that Obama was going to allow the U.N to control our guns you guys lost your nuts.

 

[ricechickie]

If you put an heirloom necklace into an indestructible safe and then lose the combination to that safe, do you still, in a meaningful way, still possess that necklace? Or if you're Rose Dawson, a surviving passenger from the Titanic, and you own the Heart of the Ocean diamond necklace, do you still own that necklace after you've dropped it overboard and it now rests on the bottom of the Atlantic?

My point is that, of course, you are what your DNA makes you, but your ancestral heritage and knowing who you are are dependent on you being able to contextualize the abstract. For instance, if you're adopted you still have your dna but your birth siblings who are raised by your natural parents also know that mom got breast cancer and the daughters are extra vigilant as adults while you are unaware of the risk you face. This is just one aspect, health, but the more meaningful aspect to those who've been hurt this way lies in personality and family and connections to past generations. That's all stolen from these people and it decouples them from knowing their place in the world.

I can't speak for others, but knowing my risk for breast cancer or Alzheimers is the least of my heritage.

What I know is that I come from a long line of farmers, and that the men in my father's family line like to give their name to their sons as a middle name. And that my grandmother was famous for her great pancakes. Or that a great-great-grandmother had no real interest in her family, but lived to play Pinochle. Those stories mean more to me.

 

[bripat9643]

Here's my gay marriage conversation:

It's fucked up and wrong. The end.

Certainly true when it comes to childrens' civil rights.

wait you are trying to use the civil right argument for kids, but disagree that the gays rights have no standing?
I love human beings. Twist anything in order to support your cause and have zero shame in it.

Marriage is not a civil right.

 

[bripat9643]

If you put an heirloom necklace into an indestructible safe and then lose the combination to that safe, do you still, in a meaningful way, still possess that necklace? Or if you're Rose Dawson, a surviving passenger from the Titanic, and you own the Heart of the Ocean diamond necklace, do you still own that necklace after you've dropped it overboard and it now rests on the bottom of the Atlantic?

My point is that, of course, you are what your DNA makes you, but your ancestral heritage and knowing who you are are dependent on you being able to contextualize the abstract. For instance, if you're adopted you still have your dna but your birth siblings who are raised by your natural parents also know that mom got breast cancer and the daughters are extra vigilant as adults while you are unaware of the risk you face. This is just one aspect, health, but the more meaningful aspect to those who've been hurt this way lies in personality and family and connections to past generations. That's all stolen from these people and it decouples them from knowing their place in the world.

I can't speak for others, but knowing my risk for breast cancer or Alzheimers is the least of my heritage.

What I know is that I come from a long line of farmers, and that the men in my father's family line like to give their name to their sons as a middle name. And that my grandmother was famous for her great pancakes. Or that a great-great-grandmother had no real interest in her family, but lived to play Pinochle. Those stories mean more to me.

You have to be quite stupid to believe your genetic inheritance doesn't have a big effect on you.