Are "Sanctuary Cities" Limited Where Humans Might Be Hurt?

[Syriusly]

The only people hurting children are those people binding them to a legal contract for life that kills their chances of ever having contact with either a mother or father.

Why do you want to harm children Silhouette?

As you well know- preventing a gay couple with children from marrying does not help a single child.
But it would harm their children.

Why do you want to harm the children of gays?

Do you hate gays so much you want to harm their children?

It sure seems so.

 

[Silhouette]

Hetero marriage doesn't legally kill children's chances of a mother or father for life. Gay marriage does, 100% of the time. Even hetero divorce preserves a child's contact with both mother and father. So hetero divorce is better for children than gay marriage.

Gay marriage harms children, not me.

 

[Syriusly]

Hetero marriage doesn't legally kill children's chances of a mother or father for life. Gay marriage does, 100% of the time. Even hetero divorce preserves a child's contact with both mother and father. So hetero divorce is better for children than gay marriage.

Gay marriage harms children, not me.

Gay marriage doesn't harm a single child- not one.

But denying marriage to gay parents, hurts their children

And that is what you want.

 

[Silhouette]

Gay marriage doesn't harm a single child- not one.

But denying marriage to gay parents, hurts their children

Sure, legally binding them of contract away from the possibility of either a mother or father for life "doesn't harm children"...Creating an institution where this is routinely done (gay marriage) "doesn't harm children"...mm hmmm..

Denying marriage benefits to singles hurts their children. Denying marriage benefits to polygamists hurts their children. Denying marriage benefits to incest couples hurts their children.

Marriage isn't a welfare program. It's a gold standard by which we measure all others as inferior to children's best interest... It is an incentive program to not do the lesser things when it comes to children.

I say, cities and states who disagree with you, Syriusly, can just as "legally" create sanctuaries away from Obergefell as San Franfreakshow can away from the INS.

 

[Syriusly]

Gay marriage doesn't harm a single child- not one.

But denying marriage to gay parents, hurts their children

Sure, legally binding them of contract away from the possibility of either a mother or father for life "doesn't harm children"...

What contract?

A marriage does not prevent any child from having his or her biological mother or father in his or her life- even if the mother is artificially inseminated.

This applies whether the mother is gay or straight- and whether or not her legal spouse is a man or a woman.

Once again- preventing a gay couple does not help a single child- it only hurts the children of gay parents.

Example

Sue and Kristi have two children- Bob and Amy- both of them sired by a gay male friend of theirs.

Sue and Kristi don't marry- and Bob and Amy are still Sue and Kristi's children- but with viewer legal protections. Their biological father is- or is not in their life depending on both the mothers and the father.

Preventing Sue and Kristi from marrying does not magically bring a father into Bob and Amy's life. Their children are harmed by not allowing them to marry.

Now lets say Sue and Kristi now marry- now that its legal. Their children suddenly have additional legal protections- which most people would applaud. Once again- this marriage has no effect on whether the biological father is in their lives- he might be- or he might not be.

You know that the only effect to children of preventing gay couples from marrying is harming children- and yet you keep promoting that.

Hence- you deliberately want to harm the children of gay couples.

 

[Silhouette]

Wow, your utopia sure sounds great for the cult of LGBT. But not so great as a standard for kids in general: the reason marriage was created over 1,000 years ago.

 

[Syriusly]

Wow, your utopia sure sounds great for the cult of LGBT. But not so great as a standard for kids in general: the reason marriage was created over 1,000 years ago.

You talking to yourself again? I guess the voices in your head give you lots of practice.

My utopia would be for you to stop advocating harm to the children of gay couples

A marriage does not prevent any child from having his or her biological mother or father in his or her life- even if the mother is artificially inseminated.

This applies whether the mother is gay or straight- and whether or not her legal spouse is a man or a woman.

Once again- preventing a gay couple does not help a single child- it only hurts the children of gay parents.

Example

Sue and Kristi have two children- Bob and Amy- both of them sired by a gay male friend of theirs.

Sue and Kristi don't marry- and Bob and Amy are still Sue and Kristi's children- but with viewer legal protections. Their biological father is- or is not in their life depending on both the mothers and the father.

Preventing Sue and Kristi from marrying does not magically bring a father into Bob and Amy's life. Their children are harmed by not allowing them to marry.

Now lets say Sue and Kristi now marry- now that its legal. Their children suddenly have additional legal protections- which most people would applaud. Once again- this marriage has no effect on whether the biological father is in their lives- he might be- or he might not be.

You know that the only effect to children of preventing gay couples from marrying is harming children- and yet you keep promoting that.

Hence- you deliberately want to harm the children of gay couples.

 

[mdk]

Wow, your utopia sure sounds great for the cult of LGBT. But not so great as a standard for kids in general: the reason marriage was created over 1,000 years ago.

For someone that puts so much stock in thread polls around here, it's funny you're silent as the grave concerning the one above.

 

[Silhouette]

You know that the only effect to children of preventing gay couples from marrying is harming children- and yet you keep promoting that.

Hence- you deliberately want to harm the children of gay couples.

So are you in favor of children of polygamists and children of singles and children of incest getting the benefits of marriage?

If no, why not? If yes, then why aren't you fighting vigorously for the lack in their lives to be remedied? Why is it JUST children roped into gay lifestyles you are concerned about? Is it that you're really just concerned about gay lifestyles getting what they want and don't give a fig about what motherless/fatherless contractual-binds-for-life do to children involved?

I'm betting on the last one.

Luckily, not everyone agrees with you. Luckily a majority does not agree with you, speaking of polls mdk & Syriusly, look again at these numbers: Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life? People who think it's important for a child to have regular contact with both a mother AND father run around 85% last time I checked the enormous turnout for this poll here. Gay marriage NEVER provides both a mother and father. So it is fair to say that 85% of people, when they consider the child-welfare angle, do not approve of gay marriage.

Those people, should they live in a city or state empathetic to children needing both a mother and father in marriage, can, San Franfreakshow-style, declare themselves sanctuaries away from Obergefell until it is overturned in the next couple of years.

 

[mdk]

Luckily, not everyone agrees with you. Luckily a majority does not agree with you, speaking of polls mdk & Syriusly, look again at these numbers: Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life? People who think it's important for a child to have regular contact with both a mother AND father run around 85% last time I checked the enormous turnout for this poll here. Gay marriage NEVER provides both a mother and father. So it is fair to say that 85% of people, when they consider the child-welfare angle, do not approve of gay marriage

A poll that doesn't ask about gay marriage is proof that 85% of Americans don't support gay marriage. lol. The power of self-delusion at its finest.

Your solution in no way addresses your problem. Stopping gays from marrying doesn't mean their children will suddenly be raised by a mother and a father. Every time this is brought to your attention you start rambling on about incest and polygamy to deflect from that fact. Chances are you'll do it again if you respond to my post.

I have a better idea, stop worrying about gay people raising children without a mother or a father and worry about your own fatherless household.

 

[peabody]

San Francisco is a sanctuary city for the rich.

 

[Silhouette]

San Francisco is a sanctuary city for the rich.

Well thanks for voting peabody.

And that ups the poll. But again, 85% of the 100 people responding from the link below said they think children should have mother/father contact growing up. Which means, if they think about it, when it comes to child-welfare, they disagree with gay marriage. Gay "marriage" binds a child or children via contract to NEVER (100% of the time) having both a mother and father in their daily lives.

(Taken from all across the political spectrum)

Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

 

[Syriusly]

You know that the only effect to children of preventing gay couples from marrying is harming children- and yet you keep promoting that.

Hence- you deliberately want to harm the children of gay couples.

So are .

So you are dodging why you want to harm the children of gay couples- and dodging what i posted- well I will ignore the rest of your dreck and point out once again- that your proposal only harms children.

A marriage does not prevent any child from having his or her biological mother or father in his or her life- even if the mother is artificially inseminated.

This applies whether the mother is gay or straight- and whether or not her legal spouse is a man or a woman.

Once again- preventing a gay couple does not help a single child- it only hurts the children of gay parents.

Example

Sue and Kristi have two children- Bob and Amy- both of them sired by a gay male friend of theirs.

Sue and Kristi don't marry- and Bob and Amy are still Sue and Kristi's children- but with viewer legal protections. Their biological father is- or is not in their life depending on both the mothers and the father.

Preventing Sue and Kristi from marrying does not magically bring a father into Bob and Amy's life. Their children are harmed by not allowing them to marry.

Now lets say Sue and Kristi now marry- now that its legal. Their children suddenly have additional legal protections- which most people would applaud. Once again- this marriage has no effect on whether the biological father is in their lives- he might be- or he might not be.

You know that the only effect to children of preventing gay couples from marrying is harming children- and yet you keep promoting that.

Hence- you deliberately want to harm the children of gay couples.

 

[Syriusly]

San Francisco is a sanctuary city for the rich.

Well thanks for voting peabody.

And that ups the poll. But again, 85% of the 100 people responding from the link below said they think children should have mother/father contact growing up. Which means, if they think about it, when it comes to child-welfare, they disagree with gay marriage. Gay "marriage" binds a child or children via contract to NEVER (100% of the time) having both a mother and father in their daily lives.
\

A marriage does not prevent any child from having his or her biological mother or father in his or her life- even if the mother is artificially inseminated.

This applies whether the mother is gay or straight- and whether or not her legal spouse is a man or a woman.

Once again- preventing a gay couple does not help a single child- it only hurts the children of gay parents.

Example

Sue and Kristi have two children- Bob and Amy- both of them sired by a gay male friend of theirs.

Sue and Kristi don't marry- and Bob and Amy are still Sue and Kristi's children- but with viewer legal protections. Their biological father is- or is not in their life depending on both the mothers and the father.

Preventing Sue and Kristi from marrying does not magically bring a father into Bob and Amy's life. Their children are harmed by not allowing them to marry.

Now lets say Sue and Kristi now marry- now that its legal. Their children suddenly have additional legal protections- which most people would applaud. Once again- this marriage has no effect on whether the biological father is in their lives- he might be- or he might not be.

You know that the only effect to children of preventing gay couples from marrying is harming children- and yet you keep promoting that.

Hence- you deliberately want to harm the children of gay couples.

 

[Silhouette]

Artificial insemination of gay men to lesbian baby-factories... Babies for hire. A new spin on child-trafficking to their detriment. I'm not impressed Syriusly. Let us know when your utopia begins to embrace things that don't actually put real young human lives in danger and harm's way..OK?

Did any money change hands in these "babies-for-gays" child-trafficking scenarios you're painting out? Just curious.

Also, do you know of the percentage of gay men contracting with lesbians for child-meat...prefer boys over girls? I'm going to guess it's a little heavy on the boy preference.

Parents' Sexuality Influences Adoption Choices

These couples also have very different reasons for their preferences, depending on their sexuality...She explored adoptive parents' child gender preferences in a geographically diverse American sample of 93 heterosexual, 61 lesbian and 48 gay male couples waiting to adopt their first child...Among those who expressed a preference, gay men were the most likely to have a preference and heterosexual men were the least likely. Couples in heterosexual relationships were less likely to prefer boys than couples in same-gender relationships....gay men most often highlighted that they felt more confident about their ability to raise and socialize boys. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090402092915.htm

So of all people wanting to adopt, gay men were the ones most likely to be picky about it. And guess what they preferred? Boys...of course...that they "felt...confident" to "socialize". Gee, with gay men, I wonder what that means exactly?

Maybe we should ask this little adopted boy with the cold sores by his mouth...with his hands curled backwards up against his chest in the young-primate-defense-posture what that means? As I recall from the interview..these two men shopped around for the perfect little boy who they called "beautiful"...

Yep...I think it's time for sanctuary cities away from Federal statutes and case law..

 

[peabody]

San Francisco is a sanctuary city for the rich.

Well thanks for voting peabody.

And that ups the poll. But again, 85% of the 100 people responding from the link below said they think children should have mother/father contact growing up. Which means, if they think about it, when it comes to child-welfare, they disagree with gay marriage. Gay "marriage" binds a child or children via contract to NEVER (100% of the time) having both a mother and father in their daily lives.

(Taken from all across the political spectrum)

Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

There is no need to argue details. It is evident that the younger generation (i.e., The future of America) supports not only gay marriage but also transgender rights and legal abortion. Additionally, a majority of Americans show similar support on these issues and their numbers grow each year. You are fighting a battle that you will lose, but I admire your unyielding faith.

 

[Syriusly]

Artificial insemination of gay men to lesbian baby-factories...

Artificial insemination of gay men?

Well that won't work very well.

 

[Syriusly]

Maybe we should ask this little adopted boy with the cold sores by his mouth...with his hands curled backwards up against his chest in the young-primate-defense-posture what that means? As I recall from the interview..these two men shopped around for the perfect little boy who they called "beautiful"...
..

One of the very sad things about Silhouette's obsessive desire to harm homosexuals in America is how she is willing to **** over kids in order to harm them.

This is a great example. Note- Silhouette offers no concern for the very real concern of sexual abuse that adoptive children may face- her only concern is to imply that gay adoptees are child molesters.

The same story noted that hetero males who adopt also prefer to adopt boys. Where is the implication that they want to molest children?

The sad reality is that that men are more of a danger when it comes to the sexual molestation of children- all men statistically.

But that doesn't mean we stop letting men adopt children. We need men to adopt the children that their hetero biological parents have abandoned.

No- it means that prospective parents need to be screened, and that all adoptions should be followed up with visits for the children's welfare.

100,000 children a year await adoption. 33,000 of them will wait 5 years or more to be adopted. Thousands will age out of the system with no family. And Silhouette is okay with that.

Just so long as she can harm gays.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no need to argue details. It is evident that the younger generation (i.e., The future of America) supports not only gay marriage but also transgender rights and legal abortion. Additionally, a majority of Americans show similar support on these issues and their numbers grow each year. You are fighting a battle that you will lose, but I admire your unyielding faith.

OK, since you're encouraging people to give up and not fight the cult of depravity. Where do you predict this will all be in 40 years hence? Three generations of boys who have never known a mother or grandmother? Child trafficking where babies are made on order and sold to gays where they will never know either a mother or father? Lesbian baby-mills? Gay all-man/little boy polygamy colonies?

Think I'm making this up? Do you understand how legal precedent works?

 

[peabody]

There is no need to argue details. It is evident that the younger generation (i.e., The future of America) supports not only gay marriage but also transgender rights and legal abortion. Additionally, a majority of Americans show similar support on these issues and their numbers grow each year. You are fighting a battle that you will lose, but I admire your unyielding faith.

OK, since you're encouraging people to give up and not fight the cult of depravity. Where do you predict this will all be in 40 years hence? Three generations of boys who have never known a mother or grandmother? Child trafficking where babies are made on order and sold to gays where they will never know either a mother or father? Lesbian baby-mills? Gay all-man/little boy polygamy colonies?

Think I'm making this up? Do you understand how legal precedent works?

You needn't worry. There is no difference in the outcome of children based solely on whether they were raised by same-sex, heterosexual, or single parents.

Children raised by same-sex couples healthier and happier, research suggests - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)