Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[kaz]

Being black changed who you can marry. Being gay doesn't. You disagree yet can't name a single gay who being gay changed who they could marry. Being black in Virginia in 1964 did change who you could marry. You can dance if you want to, but you can't name anyone who being gay changed the law.

You also can't name another law where what someone wants changes how the law is applied to them. It's a ridiculous standard.

Wrong. Race and gender are the same. Denying based on race is no different than denying based on gender...as court after court after court after court after court after court after court after court after court...is finding.

No one has disputed that courts are happy to legislate. You care committing a logical fallacy called "begging the question."

Are blacks property? The Supreme Court said so.

Slaves were property at the time. What part of slave is confusing?

Um..OK? What does that have to do with what I said?

But to answer your question, the bill of rights says you cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. What part of that is confusing?

I'm not confused... you are in defending laws that restrict life, liberty, and property of gays based on majority opinion.

Begging the question

 

[elektra]

Homosexual desire is of greater importance than the rights of heterosexual children.

 

[RKMBrown]

Um...OK? I answered the question I was asked. If that bothers you, that's your problem. PMSing is a bitch, but at least you'll be over it in a week.

So your point amounts to .. if they won't fight for liberty for all, screw em? Do I have that right?

Strawman

[
FYI I held the same stance a few years back. The stance that gays, singles, and plural marriage folk should band together and fight against the marriage tyrants...

And what triggered your epiphany that if you're a complete ass about it then you'll convince other people to change their minds?

While conservatives and libertarians agree on a lot of things regarding small government, this is one where the difference is profound. While we agree that marriage need not be a government function, in the end, you do value government. You think gays need what straights have or it's not fair, including government validation.

As a libertarian, government validation means nothing to me. So the idea that government validates one group and not another is irrelevant to me, it's not an argument. So I don't need to cave and say shucks, we aren't getting rid of it, so gays need it too. I still don't grasp why anyone needs government validation whether someone else gets it or not. I only have a government marriage now for my wife. She values it. I value her. That government recognizes us as marriage means absolutely nothing to me. I don't stay because of it, I don't care about it at all, and I have no idea why anyone would.

[but give that isn't gonna happen I think we should at least start tearing down the discriminatory laws one at a time.

Right, you're going to tear down discrimination by expanding it. I'm not seeing that as progress.

Your accusation that gays getting the right to marry is discrimination against heterosexuals is complete and utter bullshit.

Well, it would be if I made that argument. You do so like strawmen.

My epiphany? There was none it took time and deep introspection before I left the republican party. From there it was fairly easy to decide what I would stand for, liberty, for all and what I would not stand for, tyranny of the majority to take liberty away from others and cause them harm based on unjustified prejudices.

That wasn't the question

To me it's not a matter of government validation, more the other way around, it's the laws that exclude homosexuals from equal protection that I'm fighting.

Begging the question

While you may not care because you are not in a minority group, some day you might, and when that day comes you'll be looking around yelling why are you putting your jack boot on me?

So you don't know the difference between government discriminating against minorities and government giving recognition and party gifts? You have credibility at this point you probably don't.

No, I am not going to ever go to government and say THEY have this, I want it too. Never, ever will that happen.

It seems to me more like you are putting blinders on to what is going on ... more like blaming the victim, than really looking at what is going on.

Strawman

STOP DANCING AND STATE YOUR FUCKING OPINION. Be clear and I won't be left to make assumptions. Oh and look up the definition of strawman. FYI it's an argument not a stated opinion.

"So you don't know the difference between government discriminating against minorities and government giving recognition and party gifts? " WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? party gifts? Are you on drugs?

 

[RKMBrown]

Wrong. Race and gender are the same. Denying based on race is no different than denying based on gender...as court after court after court after court after court after court after court after court after court...is finding.

No one has disputed that courts are happy to legislate. You care committing a logical fallacy called "begging the question."

Are blacks property? The Supreme Court said so.

Slaves were property at the time. What part of slave is confusing?

Um..OK? What does that have to do with what I said?

But to answer your question, the bill of rights says you cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. What part of that is confusing?

I'm not confused... you are in defending laws that restrict life, liberty, and property of gays based on majority opinion.

Begging the question

BE CLEAR, BEGGING WHAT QUESTION? STOP DANCING.

 

[Seawytch]

Nope, not all. Your civil marriage license (the one you hate so much...dirty, dirty marriage license) is good in all 50 states, mine in fewer than half. When mine is recognized in all 50 just like yours, then I'll have what you have and hate.

Strawman, you really are too stupid to debate, that isn't what I said.

You just want gays to get special treatment. If you don't want to be treated like everyone else like you are now, you have two legal options. Amend the Constitution or go to the legislature. In the meantime, you will go to hell for committing such abominous acts. You can still be saved. Repent your sinful lifestyle.

Having my civil marriage license treated exactly like yours is treated is not "special" treatment.

I obviously don't have to amend the Constitution to get equal access to marriage which is why "conservatives" tried to amend it to prevent marriage equality.

Civil rights should never be put to majority vote.

Does that go for civil rights of unborn children too?

Not under current law, no. Until the fetus lives outside the woman's body, it has no civil rights.

You realize that's the same argument that the bigots are using to draw the line against homosexual marriages right? Until the homosexuals agree to get a heterosexual marriage they have no right to marriage. It's the same argument. They are arguing homosexuals are sub-human thus not deserving to be treated the same. Which is the same argument abortionists use, children in the womb are sub-human thus do not have the same rights as citizens. Yet children in the womb do have some rights. See regulations regarding care and treatment for same. These children only loose their rights when the mothers ask for them to be killed.

No, it's not the same argument. A fetus is not a person, gays are. There have been court cases.

 

[elektra]

Homosexuals will not be denied heterosexual children.

 

[Seawytch]

Homosexuals will not be denied heterosexual children.

You probably meant to say qualified couples can adopt children regardless of sexual orientation. Yes they can in most states. Qualified singles can too. Rejoice!

 

[RKMBrown]

Strawman, you really are too stupid to debate, that isn't what I said.

You just want gays to get special treatment. If you don't want to be treated like everyone else like you are now, you have two legal options. Amend the Constitution or go to the legislature. In the meantime, you will go to hell for committing such abominous acts. You can still be saved. Repent your sinful lifestyle.

Having my civil marriage license treated exactly like yours is treated is not "special" treatment.

I obviously don't have to amend the Constitution to get equal access to marriage which is why "conservatives" tried to amend it to prevent marriage equality.

Civil rights should never be put to majority vote.

Does that go for civil rights of unborn children too?

Not under current law, no. Until the fetus lives outside the woman's body, it has no civil rights.

You realize that's the same argument that the bigots are using to draw the line against homosexual marriages right? Until the homosexuals agree to get a heterosexual marriage they have no right to marriage. It's the same argument. They are arguing homosexuals are sub-human thus not deserving to be treated the same. Which is the same argument abortionists use, children in the womb are sub-human thus do not have the same rights as citizens. Yet children in the womb do have some rights. See regulations regarding care and treatment for same. These children only loose their rights when the mothers ask for them to be killed.

No, it's not the same argument. A fetus is not a person, gays are. There have been court cases.

Yes it is the same argument. A fetus is a HUMAN BEING. There have been court cases.

 

[Seawytch]

Having my civil marriage license treated exactly like yours is treated is not "special" treatment.

I obviously don't have to amend the Constitution to get equal access to marriage which is why "conservatives" tried to amend it to prevent marriage equality.

Civil rights should never be put to majority vote.

Does that go for civil rights of unborn children too?

Not under current law, no. Until the fetus lives outside the woman's body, it has no civil rights.

You realize that's the same argument that the bigots are using to draw the line against homosexual marriages right? Until the homosexuals agree to get a heterosexual marriage they have no right to marriage. It's the same argument. They are arguing homosexuals are sub-human thus not deserving to be treated the same. Which is the same argument abortionists use, children in the womb are sub-human thus do not have the same rights as citizens. Yet children in the womb do have some rights. See regulations regarding care and treatment for same. These children only loose their rights when the mothers ask for them to be killed.

No, it's not the same argument. A fetus is not a person, gays are. There have been court cases.

Yes it is the same argument. A fetus is a HUMAN BEING. There have been court cases.

Cite the court cases that grant personhood status to an unborn fetus. Embryos do not have the same legal rights as people. Stop conflating unrelated issues.

 

[Silhouette]

You are going off topic to abortion. We are talking about the rights of live, walking and talking orphans and other children in the gay marriage debate.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You are going off topic to abortion. We are talking about the rights of live, walking and talking orphans and other children in the gay marriage debate.

Correct, the discussion about children that fall into two broad categories: (A) those trapped in government orphanages and foster care systems, and (B) children being raised by same-sex couples anyway and not having the same protections because the couple is denied the equal protections of Civil Marriage.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

You are going off topic to abortion. We are talking about the rights of live, walking and talking orphans and other children in the gay marriage debate.

Correct, the discussion about children that fall into two broad categories: (A) those trapped in government orphanages and foster care systems, and (B) children being raised by same-sex couples anyway and not having the same protections because the couple is denied the equal protections of Civil Marriage.


>>>>

There are lots of children born out of wedlock. The ones in lesbian homes are some of those. It is unfortunate their mothers came into that situation. But having a child doesn't mean you get to rewrite initiative or referendum law regarding who may marry and who may not in a given state. Gay men have to rely exclusively on surrogacy or adoption. The issue of legal marriage is one of society encouraging a given situation for children. It does not guarantee that every child gets to that preferred situation. Only that society is trying to get them there via the perks granted in marriage.

Society doesn't hear the argument "well other situations suck for kids but because they already exist, we demand that you legitimize them for the sake of the kids". The sake of the kids is precisely why society WOULDN'T benefit from legitimizing them.

And we cannot ignore the sober and proud displays of lewd sex acts the LGBT subculture are all in complacent support of in their infamous and common "pride" parades. These acts are done in full expectation of children of all ages attending, and without a single vocal rebuke or censure from the entire gay community.

That is problematic where children's wellbeing is concerned...

 

[kaz]

Um...OK? I answered the question I was asked. If that bothers you, that's your problem. PMSing is a bitch, but at least you'll be over it in a week.

So your point amounts to .. if they won't fight for liberty for all, screw em? Do I have that right?

Strawman

[
FYI I held the same stance a few years back. The stance that gays, singles, and plural marriage folk should band together and fight against the marriage tyrants...

And what triggered your epiphany that if you're a complete ass about it then you'll convince other people to change their minds?

While conservatives and libertarians agree on a lot of things regarding small government, this is one where the difference is profound. While we agree that marriage need not be a government function, in the end, you do value government. You think gays need what straights have or it's not fair, including government validation.

As a libertarian, government validation means nothing to me. So the idea that government validates one group and not another is irrelevant to me, it's not an argument. So I don't need to cave and say shucks, we aren't getting rid of it, so gays need it too. I still don't grasp why anyone needs government validation whether someone else gets it or not. I only have a government marriage now for my wife. She values it. I value her. That government recognizes us as marriage means absolutely nothing to me. I don't stay because of it, I don't care about it at all, and I have no idea why anyone would.

[but give that isn't gonna happen I think we should at least start tearing down the discriminatory laws one at a time.

Right, you're going to tear down discrimination by expanding it. I'm not seeing that as progress.

Your accusation that gays getting the right to marry is discrimination against heterosexuals is complete and utter bullshit.

Well, it would be if I made that argument. You do so like strawmen.

My epiphany? There was none it took time and deep introspection before I left the republican party. From there it was fairly easy to decide what I would stand for, liberty, for all and what I would not stand for, tyranny of the majority to take liberty away from others and cause them harm based on unjustified prejudices.

That wasn't the question

To me it's not a matter of government validation, more the other way around, it's the laws that exclude homosexuals from equal protection that I'm fighting.

Begging the question

While you may not care because you are not in a minority group, some day you might, and when that day comes you'll be looking around yelling why are you putting your jack boot on me?

So you don't know the difference between government discriminating against minorities and government giving recognition and party gifts? You have credibility at this point you probably don't.

No, I am not going to ever go to government and say THEY have this, I want it too. Never, ever will that happen.

It seems to me more like you are putting blinders on to what is going on ... more like blaming the victim, than really looking at what is going on.

Strawman

STOP DANCING AND STATE YOUR FUCKING OPINION. Be clear and I won't be left to make assumptions. Oh and look up the definition of strawman. FYI it's an argument not a stated opinion.

"So you don't know the difference between government discriminating against minorities and government giving recognition and party gifts? " WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? party gifts? Are you on drugs?

I've made very clear that if you simply ask me a question without putting words in my mouth and assuming the truth of your own position, I will answer it. If you don't, I won't. Instead of continuing to just be an ass, why don't you ask the question without the crap around it, or stop expecting an answer?

I can't be any clearer. You chose, serious, or fun. Stop being an ass and choosing fun, yet expect me to provide a serious answer. Are you that big a child you are incapable of asking a question without lacing it with insults and word games?

 

[kaz]

No one has disputed that courts are happy to legislate. You care committing a logical fallacy called "begging the question."

Are blacks property? The Supreme Court said so.

Slaves were property at the time. What part of slave is confusing?

Um..OK? What does that have to do with what I said?

But to answer your question, the bill of rights says you cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. What part of that is confusing?

I'm not confused... you are in defending laws that restrict life, liberty, and property of gays based on majority opinion.

Begging the question

BE CLEAR, BEGGING WHAT QUESTION? STOP DANCING.

Begging the question is assuming the truth of your own position. That's what you are doing here. I have no idea what that even means. Not giving validation and party gifts is restricting someone's life, liberty and property how? Again, I don't even know what that means. No one is owed anything by government or anyone else. People do have the right to be left alone. Gays are left alone. So I don't know what that means. It seems like a word game on what I said.

 

[RKMBrown]

Slaves were property at the time. What part of slave is confusing?

Um..OK? What does that have to do with what I said?

But to answer your question, the bill of rights says you cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. What part of that is confusing?

I'm not confused... you are in defending laws that restrict life, liberty, and property of gays based on majority opinion.

Begging the question

BE CLEAR, BEGGING WHAT QUESTION? STOP DANCING.

Begging the question is assuming the truth of your own position. That's what you are doing here. I have no idea what that even means. Not giving validation and party gifts is restricting someone's life, liberty and property how? Again, I don't even know what that means. No one is owed anything by government or anyone else. People do have the right to be left alone. Gays are left alone. So I don't know what that means. It seems like a word game on what I said.

Let me get this straight...
I quote exactly what you said responding to your statements with my best guess at what you meant, and you complain that I'm wrong about what you said and that I was making stuff up.

So then I quote exactly what said, and ask you to tell me what you meant by your statements; and in response you tell me that you have no idea what you said, and that your statements seem like a word game on what you said.

If you don't know what you meant, how the hell am I supposed to know what you meant?

 

[kaz]

Um..OK? What does that have to do with what I said?

But to answer your question, the bill of rights says you cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. What part of that is confusing?

I'm not confused... you are in defending laws that restrict life, liberty, and property of gays based on majority opinion.

Begging the question

BE CLEAR, BEGGING WHAT QUESTION? STOP DANCING.

Begging the question is assuming the truth of your own position. That's what you are doing here. I have no idea what that even means. Not giving validation and party gifts is restricting someone's life, liberty and property how? Again, I don't even know what that means. No one is owed anything by government or anyone else. People do have the right to be left alone. Gays are left alone. So I don't know what that means. It seems like a word game on what I said.

Let me get this straight...
I quote exactly what you said responding to your statements with my best guess at what you meant, and you complain that I'm wrong about what you said and that I was making stuff up.

So then I quote exactly what said, and ask you to tell me what you meant by your statements; and in response you tell me that you have no idea what you said, and that your statements seem like a word game on what you said.

If you don't know what you meant, how the hell am I supposed to know what you meant?

So do you want to keep running your mouth or just ask a question without including strawmen and I'll answer it? I don't care if you do or not, I'm just saying that if you want me to answer a question, that's what it takes. LOL, you and Seawytch are cut from the same mold. She does the same thing, then whines I won't answer her questions when I keep telling her what it takes to answer the question. She also doesn't notice I answer her questions all the time in other posts, just not in the post she includes putting a bunch of crap in my mouth I didn't say like you do.

And LOL, best guess, that's funny. .

 

[Silhouette]

It's either funny or effective. You have to understand that the LGBT propaganda machine depends on posters like these to derail topics like this one that they REALLY REALLY REALLY don't want the public talking about in any meaningful way. Especially on the eve of a SCOTUS reconsideration of Windsor 2013.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm not confused... you are in defending laws that restrict life, liberty, and property of gays based on majority opinion.

Begging the question

BE CLEAR, BEGGING WHAT QUESTION? STOP DANCING.

Begging the question is assuming the truth of your own position. That's what you are doing here. I have no idea what that even means. Not giving validation and party gifts is restricting someone's life, liberty and property how? Again, I don't even know what that means. No one is owed anything by government or anyone else. People do have the right to be left alone. Gays are left alone. So I don't know what that means. It seems like a word game on what I said.

Let me get this straight...
I quote exactly what you said responding to your statements with my best guess at what you meant, and you complain that I'm wrong about what you said and that I was making stuff up.

So then I quote exactly what said, and ask you to tell me what you meant by your statements; and in response you tell me that you have no idea what you said, and that your statements seem like a word game on what you said.

If you don't know what you meant, how the hell am I supposed to know what you meant?

So do you want to keep running your mouth or just ask a question without including strawmen and I'll answer it? I don't care if you do or not, I'm just saying that if you want me to answer a question, that's what it takes. LOL, you and Seawytch are cut from the same mold. She does the same thing, then whines I won't answer her questions when I keep telling her what it takes to answer the question. She also doesn't notice I answer her questions all the time in other posts, just not in the post she includes putting a bunch of crap in my mouth I didn't say like you do.

And LOL, best guess, that's funny. .

Bullshit. You refuse to answer the questions posed because you lack the backbone to defend liberty for gays. My statements were not straw-men, my questions were clear. Stop dancing and deflecting and decide whether you stand for liberty in this matter or for authoritarian control. Saying you pick door number 3, no government management of marriage, is a cop out and you know it.

 

[kaz]

Begging the question

BE CLEAR, BEGGING WHAT QUESTION? STOP DANCING.

Begging the question is assuming the truth of your own position. That's what you are doing here. I have no idea what that even means. Not giving validation and party gifts is restricting someone's life, liberty and property how? Again, I don't even know what that means. No one is owed anything by government or anyone else. People do have the right to be left alone. Gays are left alone. So I don't know what that means. It seems like a word game on what I said.

Let me get this straight...
I quote exactly what you said responding to your statements with my best guess at what you meant, and you complain that I'm wrong about what you said and that I was making stuff up.

So then I quote exactly what said, and ask you to tell me what you meant by your statements; and in response you tell me that you have no idea what you said, and that your statements seem like a word game on what you said.

If you don't know what you meant, how the hell am I supposed to know what you meant?

So do you want to keep running your mouth or just ask a question without including strawmen and I'll answer it? I don't care if you do or not, I'm just saying that if you want me to answer a question, that's what it takes. LOL, you and Seawytch are cut from the same mold. She does the same thing, then whines I won't answer her questions when I keep telling her what it takes to answer the question. She also doesn't notice I answer her questions all the time in other posts, just not in the post she includes putting a bunch of crap in my mouth I didn't say like you do.

And LOL, best guess, that's funny. .

Bullshit. You refuse to answer the questions posed because you lack the backbone to defend liberty for gays. My statements were not straw-men, my questions were clear. Stop dancing and deflecting and decide whether you stand for liberty in this matter or for authoritarian control. Saying you pick door number 3, no government management of marriage, is a cop out and you know it.

So you can keep stamping your feet and demanding an answer, but you can't just ask the question without saying I'm saying idiotic things that I didn't say? You can't ask me what I think without telling me what I think while you do it? Yes, you and Seawytch, too bad she's gay, you'd get along. She does the same thing. Stamping her feet doesn't work, and she can't ask questions without saying I said things I didn't.

What I'm asking is simple. Ask me what I think without telling me what I think That's really not possible? You can't do it? You do that and I don't answer and it's on me. Now it's on you. Stop picking fun and then expecting me to be serious.

 

[kaz]

Bullshit. You refuse to answer the questions posed because you lack the backbone to defend liberty for gays. My statements were not straw-men, my questions were clear. Stop dancing and deflecting and decide whether you stand for liberty in this matter or for authoritarian control. Saying you pick door number 3, no government management of marriage, is a cop out and you know it.

So you can keep stamping your feet and demanding an answer, but you can't just ask the question without saying I'm saying idiotic things that I didn't say? You can't ask me what I think without telling me what I think while you do it? Yes, you and Seawytch, too bad she's gay, you'd get along. She does the same thing. Stamping her feet doesn't work, and she can't ask questions without saying I said things I didn't.

What I'm asking is simple. Ask me what I think without telling me what I think That's really not possible? You can't do it? You do that and I don't answer and it's on me. Now it's on you. Stop picking fun and then expecting me to be serious.

I'll tell you what, I'll lower the bar even more for you. Remind me what you are asking and I'll help you phrase it as an actual question. But you will have to post it for me to answer it. I am tired of the "you said this and you said that" as if it's a question. Generally it's liberals who do that to me. Not always.