Bevin: Same-Sex Marriage Will Lead To Parent-Child Marriage

[Uncensored2008]

You're admitting there's no harm to anyone if two men or two women marry? Then what argument do you have left?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The harm is to the foundations of society. I've repeatedly explained that the institution of marriage is for the good of society, to ensure that children are cared for and socialized. It has nothing to do with your desire for sexual gratification.

I've ALSO stated repeatedly that I have no issue with anyone's sexual desires. Do whatever the hell you want.

BUT from a sociatal standpoint - don't change the ******* rules, they're there for a reason. In simple terms, come in and be welcome, but don't shit on the carpet.

 

[mal]

Two Mothers do not Equal a Father... Two Fathers do not Equal a Mother.

Boys and Girls are being Deliberately Denied one of them in Gay Marriage all for an Attempt at finding some Validation in their Deviant Sexual Choices.

It's really Fucked up.



peace...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What is unhealthy about a brother and sister getting married?

What is unhealthy about marrying a blow up doll, or a vibrator?

Why do you ask stupid questions?

You didn't answer his question.

He won't answer the question because there is only one correct answer and that answer effectively destroys all arguments against same sex marriage that involve any claim of a resultant harm to society that would justify the government denying gays the right to same sex marriage.

Correct.

In all the cases invalidating laws denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights, supporters of those laws failed time and again to provide objective, documented evidence in support of infringing upon gay Americans’ civil liberties, where allowing same-sex couples already eligible to inter into marriage contracts to indeed marry in no way adversely effects any aspect of society.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're admitting there's no harm to anyone if two men or two women marry? Then what argument do you have left?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The harm is to the foundations of society. I've repeatedly explained that the institution of marriage is for the good of society, to ensure that children are cared for and socialized. It has nothing to do with your desire for sexual gratification.

I've ALSO stated repeatedly that I have no issue with anyone's sexual desires. Do whatever the hell you want.

BUT from a sociatal standpoint - don't change the ******* rules, they're there for a reason. In simple terms, come in and be welcome, but don't shit on the carpet.

Shouldn't we then be taking children away from single parents and putting them with man/woman married couples, if such are available?

Rules get discovered to have been wrong and get changed all the time, btw.

 

[Seawytch]

You're admitting there's no harm to anyone if two men or two women marry? Then what argument do you have left?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The harm is to the foundations of society. I've repeatedly explained that the institution of marriage is for the good of society, to ensure that children are cared for and socialized. It has nothing to do with your desire for sexual gratification.

I've ALSO stated repeatedly that I have no issue with anyone's sexual desires. Do whatever the hell you want.

BUT from a sociatal standpoint - don't change the ******* rules, they're there for a reason. In simple terms, come in and be welcome, but don't shit on the carpet.

Except that children are not a requirement for civil marriage ANYWHERE.

So "the rule" that said blacks could only marry blacks and whites could only marry whites was there for a reason? The bigots of yore thought so...much like the bigots of today think that men shouldn't marry men and women shouldn't marry women.

Too late.

 

[mal]

You're admitting there's no harm to anyone if two men or two women marry? Then what argument do you have left?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The harm is to the foundations of society. I've repeatedly explained that the institution of marriage is for the good of society, to ensure that children are cared for and socialized. It has nothing to do with your desire for sexual gratification.

I've ALSO stated repeatedly that I have no issue with anyone's sexual desires. Do whatever the hell you want.

BUT from a sociatal standpoint - don't change the ******* rules, they're there for a reason. In simple terms, come in and be welcome, but don't shit on the carpet.

Except that children are not a requirement for civil marriage ANYWHERE.

So "the rule" that said blacks could only marry blacks and whites could only marry whites was there for a reason? The bigots of yore thought so...much like the bigots of today think that men shouldn't marry men and women shouldn't marry women.

Too late.

And if that is the Standard, then you can't deny Siblings Marriage while Demanding and Expansion of it for yourself in an Exclusionary fashion.



peace...

 

[nodoginnafight]

I've repeatedly explained that the institution of marriage is for the good of society, to ensure that children are cared for and socialized.

Nope, marriage became a state issue in order to establish inheritance rights.

The harm is to the foundations of society.

Please elaborate and document.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The harm is to the foundations of society. I've repeatedly explained that the institution of marriage is for the good of society, to ensure that children are cared for and socialized. It has nothing to do with your desire for sexual gratification.

I've ALSO stated repeatedly that I have no issue with anyone's sexual desires. Do whatever the hell you want.

BUT from a sociatal standpoint - don't change the ******* rules, they're there for a reason. In simple terms, come in and be welcome, but don't shit on the carpet.

Except that children are not a requirement for civil marriage ANYWHERE.

So "the rule" that said blacks could only marry blacks and whites could only marry whites was there for a reason? The bigots of yore thought so...much like the bigots of today think that men shouldn't marry men and women shouldn't marry women.

Too late.

And if that is the Standard, then you can't deny Siblings Marriage while Demanding and Expansion of it for yourself in an Exclusionary fashion.



peace...

Siblings have the same access to the courts as everyone else.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Two Mothers do not Equal a Father... Two Fathers do not Equal a Mother.

Boys and Girls are being Deliberately Denied one of them in Gay Marriage all for an Attempt at finding some Validation in their Deviant Sexual Choices.

It's really Fucked up.



peace...

One mother doesn't equal a mother and father, one father doesn't equal a mother and father.

Yet divorce is allowed.

 

[Silhouette]

Two Mothers do not Equal a Father... Two Fathers do not Equal a Mother.

Boys and Girls are being Deliberately Denied one of them in Gay Marriage all for an Attempt at finding some Validation in their Deviant Sexual Choices.

It's really Fucked up.



peace...

It's more than just that. I own a ranch and run several different species of critters. Innate to all of them is the protection and care of their own offspring. I'll give you my sheep for an example. They instinctively recognize and bond to their own lambs in a flock and any other lambs that try to approach them they head butt away. They are fiercely protective of their own lambs. Any predator like a dog or fox etc. that comes near their lambs, they will guard them and fight for them as much as they can. Other lambs are left to their own moms. Somehow a ram knows which lambs are his and lambs sired by a rogue ram he will act more distant and hostile towards. It's biological.

There is no denying the strong bonds of the natural biological child of two parents. A woman has the birth and pregnancy to foster this bond. A man sees his own eyes, chin, nose or hair on his infant and warmly regards him as "a chip off the old block". These two people, should they be in love, are the best two people in the world to raise that child. That's why vows implore participants in marriage to stick by each other through thick and thin, to not forsake each other for another. It isn't for their benefit. It is for their children's benefit that this is so. Marriage is about children. It is society's insurance that children [future adult members] receive the best possible upbringing as a rule.

A society has a deeply vested interest in preserving this situation. Gays don't fit the bill. Especially their defended reverence for a man who raped, habitually, teen orphaned boys on drugs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Two Mothers do not Equal a Father... Two Fathers do not Equal a Mother.

Boys and Girls are being Deliberately Denied one of them in Gay Marriage all for an Attempt at finding some Validation in their Deviant Sexual Choices.

It's really Fucked up.



peace...

It's more than just that. I own a ranch and run several different species of critters. Innate to all of them is the protection and care of their own offspring. I'll give you my sheep for an example. They instinctively recognize and bond to their own lambs in a flock and any other lambs that try to approach them they head butt away. They are fiercely protective of their own lambs. Any predator like a dog or fox etc. that comes near their lambs, they will guard them and fight for them as much as they can. Other lambs are left to their own moms. Somehow a ram knows which lambs are his and lambs sired by a rogue ram he will act more distant and hostile towards. It's biological.

There is no denying the strong bonds of the natural biological child of two parents. A woman has the birth and pregnancy to foster this bond. A man sees his own eyes, chin, nose or hair on his infant and warmly regards him as "a chip off the old block". These two people, should they be in love, are the best two people in the world to raise that child. That's why vows implore participants in marriage to stick by each other through thick and thin, to not forsake each other for another. It isn't for their benefit. It is for their children's benefit that this is so. Marriage is about children. It is society's insurance that children [future adult members] receive the best possible upbringing as a rule.

A society has a deeply vested interest in preserving this situation. Gays don't fit the bill. Especially their defended reverence for a man who raped, habitually, teen orphaned boys on drugs.

So you're raising sheep with monogamous mate for life breeding pairs? Lol, I bet.

 

[GreenBean]

You're admitting there's no harm to anyone if two men or two women marry? Then what argument do you have left?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The harm is to the foundations of society. I've repeatedly explained that the institution of marriage is for the good of society, to ensure that children are cared for and socialized. It has nothing to do with your desire for sexual gratification.

I've ALSO stated repeatedly that I have no issue with anyone's sexual desires. Do whatever the hell you want.

BUT from a sociatal standpoint - don't change the ******* rules, they're there for a reason. In simple terms, come in and be welcome, but don't shit on the carpet.

Except that children are not a requirement for civil marriage ANYWHERE.

So "the rule" that said blacks could only marry blacks and whites could only marry whites was there for a reason? The bigots of yore thought so...much like the bigots of today think that men shouldn't marry men and women shouldn't marry women.

Too late.

Welcome Back seahag -
But kindly stop equating racial minorities with sexual perverts , it is extremely inflammatory and highly insulting to our African American countrymen.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Shouldn't we then be taking children away from single parents and putting them with man/woman married couples, if such are available?

Explain how that benefits society.

Rules get discovered to have been wrong and get changed all the time, btw.

The rules are right, they just conflict with your desires. In our crumbling society, discarding of the values that made us successful has become the norm, and the reason for our collapse.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Except that children are not a requirement for civil marriage ANYWHERE.

Why do leftists have such an inability to grasp cause and effect?

Perhaps it is the innate lack of logical reasoning that makes one a leftist?

So "the rule" that said blacks could only marry blacks and whites could only marry whites was there for a reason?

Yes, it was there to keep the ruling democrats insulated and in power. Since society decided that the goal was flawed, the rule was discarded.

The bigots of yore thought so...much like the bigots of today think that men shouldn't marry men and women shouldn't marry women.

Too late.

Behavior <> race - despite the tactical advantage that would be conferred if it were.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nope, marriage became a state issue in order to establish inheritance rights.

Utter nonsense.

Marriage was an institution long before European nobility concerned themselves with inheritance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Except that children are not a requirement for civil marriage ANYWHERE.

Why do leftists have such an inability to grasp cause and effect?

Perhaps it is the innate lack of logical reasoning that makes one a leftist?

So "the rule" that said blacks could only marry blacks and whites could only marry whites was there for a reason?

Yes, it was there to keep the ruling democrats insulated and in power. Since society decided that the goal was flawed, the rule was discarded.

The bigots of yore thought so...much like the bigots of today think that men shouldn't marry men and women shouldn't marry women.

Too late.

Behavior <> race - despite the tactical advantage that would be conferred if it were.

Gay 'behaviour' is about having sex. Don't heterosexuals have sex?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Shouldn't we then be taking children away from single parents and putting them with man/woman married couples, if such are available?

Explain how that benefits society.

It's what you think benefits society. You think that children not having a father and mother is so potentially detrimental to them that you are willing to deny that right to gay couples.

By your logic the same detriment occurs in a single parent scenario, so logically you would want to remedy that in every case you could, by law,

by taking those children out of that detrimental situation and putting them with 'real' parents.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Gay 'behaviour' is about having sex. Don't heterosexuals have sex?

Hamsters have sex, yet we don't create federal laws requiring bakers and dress makers to celebrate the fact.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's what you think benefits society.

I don't "think," I have fact on my side, The disintegration of the American family tracks to the rise in gangs as proxy to those families. Societies degrade from a family structure to a tribal structure.

You think that children not having a father and mother is so potentially detrimental to them that you are willing to deny that right to gay couples.

No right is being denied. No homosexual has ever been denied the right to marry. You have simply demanded that marriage be redefined to suit the desires of homosexuals. I point out that such a redefinition is contrary to the anthropological impetus for marriage in the first place.

By your logic the same detriment occurs in a single parent scenario, so logically you would want to remedy that in every case you could, by law,

No more than I would want to outlaw homosexuality/

by taking those children out of that detrimental situation and putting them with 'real' parents.

I understand that absurdity is the basis of the counter-culture arguments - gawd knows logic isn't going to be present.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Except that children are not a requirement for civil marriage ANYWHERE.

Why do leftists have such an inability to grasp cause and effect?

Perhaps it is the innate lack of logical reasoning that makes one a leftist?

The logic would be that when a couple go to get married there is no requirement for them to have children.
The other bit of logic is, if you are not married and a man and woman have sex they can produce a child the same as if they are married.
Other logic says for every 2 marriages there is more than one divorce, which suggest that marriage isn't so great in many situations for the potential children that are being produced. It also suggests the states would have a hard time justifying marriage as the greatest thing for children.
GOOD marriage is GOOD for children. BAD marriage is BAD for children.