Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I guess peoples answer to the OP is;

Children are not part of the Conversation.

Homosexual Men Will Have The Right To Adopt 9 year old boys and have the right to teach them, Anal Sex.

That is the sentence the Homosexuals and the Homosexual Activists do not want spoken.

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

Otherwise your ignorance and hate concerning gay Americans is noted.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I guess peoples answer to the OP is;

Children are not part of the Conversation.

Homosexual Men Will Have The Right To Adopt 9 year old boys and have the right to teach them, Anal Sex.

That is the sentence the Homosexuals and the Homosexual Activists do not want spoken.

As 9 year old girls are adopted by heterosexual couples for abuse; yes, adults need to be scrutinized.

Yes, the picture above are mild compared to the heteroseuxal carnivals of Sao Paulo and New Orleans.

 

[ShackledNation]

^^
Here we go again.

A couple does not have to raise children, have the intent of raising children, or even be capable having children to obtain a marriage license.

That's all true, but the welfare of children is the only reason the marriage contract exists. If it wasn't for the fact of reproduction, why bother with marriage at all?

Obviously the welfare of children is not the only reason the contract exists, since, as I said, a couple does not have to raise children, have the intent to do so, or even be capable of having children in order to obtain a marriage license.

As to the well-being of children with gay parents--they do fine. Some studies even say slightly better.

Those "studies" are all bogus. They're little more than propaganda.[/QUOTE]
No, they are valid. Calling studies that disprove your bias bogus is typical of close-minded individuals.

 

[ShackledNation]

Denied, we have to give special privileges to people who, literally define themselves first by their sexuality?

How are two men, one who thinks he is a woman and uses his butt, his waste canal, a part of his body that is used to dispose of waste from the body, how is using the waste canal, the rectum as a sex organ, a defining characteristic to be a mother?

How is a man, that uses his rectum

Sil, you showed those exact same pictures in another thread. And your arguments were destroyed in that thread. Do you really have so little thought in your head that you have to literally repost the exact same thing over and over? Hoping it will stick?

 

[ShackledNation]

Denied, we have to give special privileges to people who, literally define themselves first by their sexuality?

How are two men, one who thinks he is a woman and uses his butt, his waste canal, a part of his body that is used to dispose of waste from the body, how is using the waste canal, the rectum as a sex organ, a defining characteristic to be a mother?

How is a man, that uses his rectum

Sil, you showed those exact same pictures in another thread. And your arguments were destroyed in that thread. Do you really have so little thought in your head that you have to literally repost the exact same thing over and over? Hoping it will stick? It really is sad and pathetic.

 

[elektra]

I guess peoples answer to the OP is;

Children are not part of the Conversation.

Homosexual Men Will Have The Right To Adopt 9 year old boys and have the right to teach them, Anal Sex.

That is the sentence the Homosexuals and the Homosexual Activists do not want spoken.

As 9 year old girls are adopted by heterosexual couples for abuse; yes, adults need to be scrutinized.

Yes, the picture above are mild compared to the heteroseuxal carnivals of Sao Paulo and New Orleans.

Another example of how when discussing Homosexual marriage, the conversation can not be about Homosexuals. The Homosexual Activist must dictate the conversation, if people are allowed, "right to free speech", within the Homosexual Marriage debate, the Homosexuals lose.

 

[elektra]

I guess peoples answer to the OP is;

Children are not part of the Conversation.

Homosexual Men Will Have The Right To Adopt 9 year old boys and have the right to teach them, Anal Sex.

That is the sentence the Homosexuals and the Homosexual Activists do not want spoken.

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

Otherwise your ignorance and hate concerning gay Americans is noted.

Flaming and trolling does not disprove my fact.

Bigotry and Stereotyping.

Again, the Homosexual Activists must control the Conversation, no free speech or they lose.

I am now ignorant.
I hate.

I must not post again, I must run from this thread and not be heard. Most people will not tolerate the abuse of ridicule, they will simply not participate. This is how the Homosexual Activist passes the agenda.

Ridicule and Killing free speech.

Control the Conversation, we must not speak of the details the Homosexuals dictate.

Homosexual Men Will Have The Right To Adopt 9 year old boys and have the right to teach them, Anal Sex.

That is the sentence the Homosexuals and the Homosexual Activists do not want spoken

 

[elektra]

I guess peoples answer to the OP is;

Children are not part of the Conversation.

Homosexual Men Will Have The Right To Adopt 9 year old boys and have the right to teach them, Anal Sex.

That is the sentence the Homosexuals and the Homosexual Activists do not want spoken.

As 9 year old girls are adopted by heterosexual couples for abuse; yes, adults need to be scrutinized.

Yes, the picture above are mild compared to the heteroseuxal carnivals of Sao Paulo and New Orleans.

I was not aware I was describing abuse.

I was not speaking of Abuse, is teaching an adopted 9 year old girl how Mommy and Daddy make babies abuse.

JakeStarkey, are stating that two Homosexual Men Married as Husband and Wife teaching their 9 yr old boy how they have anal sex is abuse.

Should one be taught and the other should not be taught.

So Homosexual parents must keep secrets within their, "family".

 

[ricechickie]

I guess peoples answer to the OP is;

Children are not part of the Conversation.

Homosexual Men Will Have The Right To Adopt 9 year old boys and have the right to teach them, Anal Sex.

That is the sentence the Homosexuals and the Homosexual Activists do not want spoken.

This post is more than a little sick.

Do you (or would you) talk to your children about your sex life, in a graphic nature. As in french kissing, oral sex, vaginal sex, talking dirty, watching or reading erotic stories, etc, etc, etc?

You're so hung up on anal sex, that you seem to think a sex talk with a 9-year-old boy must include a graphic description of anal sex. Or worse, a demonstration.

 

[ricechickie]

I was not aware I was describing abuse.

I was not speaking of Abuse, is teaching an adopted 9 year old girl how Mommy and Daddy make babies abuse.

JakeStarkey, are stating that two Homosexual Men Married as Husband and Wife teaching their 9 yr old boy how they have anal sex is abuse.

Should one be taught and the other should not be taught.

So Homosexual parents must keep secrets within their, "family".

Do you describe exactly how you bring your husband to orgasm, in the name of sex education?

Like I said, sick.

 

[beagle9]

Marriage between a man and woman regardless of their color is not the same thing as gay marriage at all, as it (marriage between a man and a woman) is sanctioned by God as was exampled in the case with Moses when Miriam and Antioch (I think) spoke against Moses marriage, and God punished them for speaking against Moses in this way . Nice try though..

Marriage may have begun as a religious construct, but it is now also a civil construct, separate from religion, sanctioned by government.

Maybe that's the problem. Maybe we should do away with the government-given perks of marriage, and simply let it be a private ceremony. Anyone can marry anyone, and the law won't touch it.

Otherwise, it's discriminatory to prevent gay people from marrying the person of their choice, just like anti-miscegenation laws were discriminatory to prevent the same thing.

Not really, the marriage license is not the same thing as the religious construct. You don't need religion to get a marriage license, and you don't necessarily need a marriage license to get a religious marriage. They really are two separate things. Granted, a lot of folk get confused about the two topics and often use the terms interchangeably.

But, the religious ceremony is just for show. Only the civil contract is legally binding.

My church marriage meant and still means more to me than the license. So, I guess it depends on what is more important to you. I could give a shit if govco tossed my license, my wife and I would still consider ourselves married.

That's not what I said. I did not address "feelings".

Civil marriage is a legally binding contract.

A religious ceremony is not.

That is simply a statement of fact and has nothing to do with how one feels about it.

So what are gay's after then, the legal binding part of it for their overall agenda, and not instead the true meaning of what it is to be married in the eyes of God ?

 

[elektra]

I was not aware I was describing abuse.

I was not speaking of Abuse, is teaching an adopted 9 year old girl how Mommy and Daddy make babies abuse.

JakeStarkey, are stating that two Homosexual Men Married as Husband and Wife teaching their 9 yr old boy how they have anal sex is abuse.

Should one be taught and the other should not be taught.

So Homosexual parents must keep secrets within their, "family".

Do you describe exactly how you bring your husband to orgasm, in the name of sex education?

Like I said, sick.

wow, another example how the Homosexual Activist must portray the opposition as sick to advocate for Homosexual Marriage.

Also an example of ignorance, stereotyping, and bigotry. First off I am a guy, the Avatar is of a record Label, I put that much thought into my user name.
Maybe with such narrow-sightedness you should not be part of this discussion.

ricechickie is not open enough to think, perhaps the Avatar is the "user", a fan of a Record Label.

Only through a narrow view will there be Homosexual Marriage, it must be narrow, the whole truth must not be part of the discussion.

 

[ricechickie]

wow, another example how the Homosexual Activist must portray the opposition as sick to advocate for Homosexual Marriage.

Also an example of ignorance, stereotyping, and bigotry. First off I am a guy, the Avatar is of a record Label, I put that much thought into my user name.
Maybe with such narrow-sightedness you should not be part of this discussion.

ricechickie is not open enough to think, perhaps the Avatar is the "user", a fan of a Record Label.

Only through a narrow view will there be Homosexual Marriage, it must be narrow, the whole truth must not be part of the discussion.

I apologize, "Electra" is a female name.

That said, my point stands. It is sick to expect that any parent would discuss in graphic detail their sexual practices.

Homosexual parents do the same things as heterosexual parents. They nurture, and support, and feed and clothe, and instill morals in their children to be good people.

As all parents do,they have moments of success and some of failure.

 

[ricechickie]

So what are gay's after then, the legal binding part of it for their overall agenda, and not instead the true meaning of what it is to be married in the eyes of God ?

I am not married in the eyes of God. Mainly because I don't believe in Him.

 

[ShackledNation]

Marriage between a man and woman regardless of their color is not the same thing as gay marriage at all, as it (marriage between a man and a woman) is sanctioned by God as was exampled in the case with Moses when Miriam and Antioch (I think) spoke against Moses marriage, and God punished them for speaking against Moses in this way . Nice try though..

Marriage may have begun as a religious construct, but it is now also a civil construct, separate from religion, sanctioned by government.

Maybe that's the problem. Maybe we should do away with the government-given perks of marriage, and simply let it be a private ceremony. Anyone can marry anyone, and the law won't touch it.

Otherwise, it's discriminatory to prevent gay people from marrying the person of their choice, just like anti-miscegenation laws were discriminatory to prevent the same thing.

Not really, the marriage license is not the same thing as the religious construct. You don't need religion to get a marriage license, and you don't necessarily need a marriage license to get a religious marriage. They really are two separate things. Granted, a lot of folk get confused about the two topics and often use the terms interchangeably.

But, the religious ceremony is just for show. Only the civil contract is legally binding.

My church marriage meant and still means more to me than the license. So, I guess it depends on what is more important to you. I could give a shit if govco tossed my license, my wife and I would still consider ourselves married.

That's not what I said. I did not address "feelings".

Civil marriage is a legally binding contract.

A religious ceremony is not.

That is simply a statement of fact and has nothing to do with how one feels about it.

So what are gay's after then, the legal binding part of it for their overall agenda, and not instead the true meaning of what it is to be married in the eyes of God ?

Marriage between a man and woman regardless of their color is not the same thing as gay marriage at all, as it (marriage between a man and a woman) is sanctioned by God as was exampled in the case with Moses when Miriam and Antioch (I think) spoke against Moses marriage, and God punished them for speaking against Moses in this way . Nice try though..

Marriage may have begun as a religious construct, but it is now also a civil construct, separate from religion, sanctioned by government.

Maybe that's the problem. Maybe we should do away with the government-given perks of marriage, and simply let it be a private ceremony. Anyone can marry anyone, and the law won't touch it.

Otherwise, it's discriminatory to prevent gay people from marrying the person of their choice, just like anti-miscegenation laws were discriminatory to prevent the same thing.

Not really, the marriage license is not the same thing as the religious construct. You don't need religion to get a marriage license, and you don't necessarily need a marriage license to get a religious marriage. They really are two separate things. Granted, a lot of folk get confused about the two topics and often use the terms interchangeably.

But, the religious ceremony is just for show. Only the civil contract is legally binding.

My church marriage meant and still means more to me than the license. So, I guess it depends on what is more important to you. I could give a shit if govco tossed my license, my wife and I would still consider ourselves married.

That's not what I said. I did not address "feelings".

Civil marriage is a legally binding contract.

A religious ceremony is not.

That is simply a statement of fact and has nothing to do with how one feels about it.

So what are gay's after then, the legal binding part of it for their overall agenda, and not instead the true meaning of what it is to be married in the eyes of God ?

Gay people want to be able to obtain marriage licenses, like everyone else. The marriage license has nothing to do with the eyes of God, merely the eyes of government. Hence why atheists can obtain a marriage license.

 

[elektra]

wow, another example how the Homosexual Activist must portray the opposition as sick to advocate for Homosexual Marriage.

Also an example of ignorance, stereotyping, and bigotry. First off I am a guy, the Avatar is of a record Label, I put that much thought into my user name.
Maybe with such narrow-sightedness you should not be part of this discussion.

ricechickie is not open enough to think, perhaps the Avatar is the "user", a fan of a Record Label.

Only through a narrow view will there be Homosexual Marriage, it must be narrow, the whole truth must not be part of the discussion.

I apologize, "Electra" is a female name.

That said, my point stands. It is sick to expect that any parent would discuss in graphic detail their sexual practices.

Homosexual parents do the same things as heterosexual parents. They nurture, and support, and feed and clothe, and instill morals in their children to be good people.

As all parents do,they have moments of success and some of failure.

Your point stands, hardly, thus far all you have done is troll and exhibit narrow-mindedness.

You have flamed my posts twice. You have attempted to embarrass and demean me, you have called me sick, more than once.

My point is validated by ricechickie, the Homosexual Activists must dictate the conversation and debate, the Homosexual Activists will demean and ridicule opposition into silence.

 

[ricechickie]

Your point stands, hardly, thus far all you have done is troll and exhibit narrow-mindedness.

You have flamed my posts twice. You have attempted to embarrass and demean me, you have called me sick, more than once.

My point is validated by ricechickie, the Homosexual Activists must dictate the conversation and debate, the Homosexual Activists will demean and ridicule opposition into silence.

Your view of homosexuality is sick. That wasn't meant to be a flame.

Your point isn't validated, you're just being outraged at me for disagreeing with you.

Rage, rage away.

 

[elektra]

Your point stands, hardly, thus far all you have done is troll and exhibit narrow-mindedness.

You have flamed my posts twice. You have attempted to embarrass and demean me, you have called me sick, more than once.

My point is validated by ricechickie, the Homosexual Activists must dictate the conversation and debate, the Homosexual Activists will demean and ridicule opposition into silence.

Your view of homosexuality is sick. That wasn't meant to be a flame.

Your point isn't validated, you're just being outraged at me for disagreeing with you.

Rage, rage away.

Rage? ricechickie is demonstrating rage, repeatedly deflecting and distracting from all points made. Followed up by lots of Hate.

ricechickie, your bigotry is on display, go ahead and explain to everyone, my view of homosexuality.

 

[Plasmaball]

I was not aware I was describing abuse.

I was not speaking of Abuse, is teaching an adopted 9 year old girl how Mommy and Daddy make babies abuse.

JakeStarkey, are stating that two Homosexual Men Married as Husband and Wife teaching their 9 yr old boy how they have anal sex is abuse.

Should one be taught and the other should not be taught.

So Homosexual parents must keep secrets within their, "family".

Do you describe exactly how you bring your husband to orgasm, in the name of sex education?

Like I said, sick.

wow, another example how the Homosexual Activist must portray the opposition as sick to advocate for Homosexual Marriage.

Also an example of ignorance, stereotyping, and bigotry. First off I am a guy, the Avatar is of a record Label, I put that much thought into my user name.
Maybe with such narrow-sightedness you should not be part of this discussion.

ricechickie is not open enough to think, perhaps the Avatar is the "user", a fan of a Record Label.

Only through a narrow view will there be Homosexual Marriage, it must be narrow, the whole truth must not be part of the discussion.

the truth is simple. The view is simple. The whole truth is simple. We are a nation of equal laws, and the public does not have the right to strip another citizen of a right via vote. The way these things are cascading is how our government has been set up from day one. If you do not like how we have the courts balance out laws, then i suggest you leave, America isnt for you then. Nor do we take our laws from the Bible, Constitution>bible, and in fact the bible is irrelevant period.

therefore what you find disgusting or immoral is also irrelevant, in fact you are just that, irrelevant.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I guess peoples answer to the OP is;

Children are not part of the Conversation.

Homosexual Men Will Have The Right To Adopt 9 year old boys and have the right to teach them, Anal Sex.

That is the sentence the Homosexuals and the Homosexual Activists do not want spoken.

As 9 year old girls are adopted by heterosexual couples for abuse; yes, adults need to be scrutinized.

Yes, the picture above are mild compared to the heteroseuxal carnivals of Sao Paulo and New Orleans.

Another example of how when discussing Homosexual marriage, the conversation can not be about Homosexuals. The Homosexual Activist must dictate the conversation, if people are allowed, "right to free speech", within the Homosexual Marriage debate, the Homosexuals lose.

No, Elektra, when the issue involves both orientations and the issue of marriage, YOU WILL NEVER be allowed to deflect the conversation.

The issue is not homosexuals and child abuse, it is child abuse and all adults.

Got it now?