Conservative State Challenge: "The Child-Protective/Fiscal-Future Marriage Act"

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You know...there's no requirement that anyone getting a driver's license must actually drive. Yet the state anticipates that that person will eventually drive, so they require certain standards be met and passed in order to insure the safety of everyone who implicitly shares the road with them.

Marriage is about children. The contract is about the anticipation of children. Therefore, children should have had a seat at the revision table. They didn't. They were actively shut out. Doesn't a person being shut out of a conversation about something that affects them deeply bother you Syriusly?

Well, the United States was entirely founded upon the principle that liability imposed, without consideration for and of the person(s) upon which the liability is imposed, was intolerable and sufficiently intolerable to severe the consent of the governed, thus sufficient to sever the governed, from the government so imposing, said liability.

 

[Syriusly]

Worse, your proposal has nothing to do with the issue you seek to remedy. As denying marriage to gay parents doesn't make them opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents. Which harms those children as the courts have found repeatedly.

They don't have married parents anyway.

By definition, marriage always has been, and always will be, between a man and a woman. Calling a joining of two men or two women a “marriage” does not make a marriage. .

That is your opinion. And frankly you are just in denial.

By definition- legal definition- or Websters now- marriage is between a man and a woman- or a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

You don't have to like it- you don't have to approve of it- but in the United States it has been a legal reality for 11 years in one or more states.

 

[Syriusly]

Worse, your proposal has nothing to do with the issue you seek to remedy. As denying marriage to gay parents doesn't make them opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents. Which harms those children as the courts have found repeatedly.

And passing this off to children as an acceptable substitute for a real set of parents with a real marriage, is fraud and abuse against those children..

Preventing the gay parents of children from marrying benefits no child- it doesn't suddenly make any child have what you call 'real' parents- it doesn't prevent any homosexual from having children.

All it does is ensure that those children will not have married parents.

Which is real harm to those children.

And you are okay with that.

 

[Syriusly]

Worse, your proposal has nothing to do with the issue you seek to remedy. As denying marriage to gay parents doesn't make them opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents. Which harms those children as the courts have found repeatedly.

You cannot advocate this sickness, this madness and then be left with any credible basis on which to claim any sincere concern for the wellbeing of children. Your is the position that attacks children, that exploits them to their own detriment, in order to promote a willfully evil and perverted agenda.

Your position does nothing but call harm children.

Your position would not protect a single child from harm but it would cause harm to children.

And you are okay with that.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Worse, your proposal has nothing to do with the issue you seek to remedy. As denying marriage to gay parents doesn't make them opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents. Which harms those children as the courts have found repeatedly.

And passing this off to children as an acceptable substitute for a real set of parents with a real marriage, is fraud and abuse against those children..

Preventing the gay parents of children from marrying benefits no child- it doesn't suddenly make any child have what you call 'real' parents- it doesn't prevent any homosexual from having children.

All it does is ensure that those children will not have married parents.

Which is real harm to those children.

And you are okay with that.

Yours is the position that harms children, and I am most certainly not OK with it.

I am in favor of children having married parents. I am not in favor of the giving them the dysfunctional mockery of such, and accepting that as a substitute for the real thing.

 

[Syriusly]

Worse, your proposal has nothing to do with the issue you seek to remedy. As denying marriage to gay parents doesn't make them opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents. Which harms those children as the courts have found repeatedly.

And passing this off to children as an acceptable substitute for a real set of parents with a real marriage, is fraud and abuse against those children..

Preventing the gay parents of children from marrying benefits no child- it doesn't suddenly make any child have what you call 'real' parents- it doesn't prevent any homosexual from having children.

All it does is ensure that those children will not have married parents.

Which is real harm to those children.

And you are okay with that.

Yours is the position that harms children, and I am most certainly not OK with it.

I am in favor of children having married parents. I am not in favor of the giving them the dysfunctional mockery of such, and accepting that as a substitute for the real thing.

As I have explained- your position helps not a single child- your position does not magically make the children of gay parents suddenly have June and Ward Cleaver as their married parents.

All your position does is advocate for these children not to have married parents.

Because you prefer the children of gay parents to be harmed- rather than letting them have married parents.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Worse, your proposal has nothing to do with the issue you seek to remedy. As denying marriage to gay parents doesn't make them opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents. Which harms those children as the courts have found repeatedly.

They don't have married parents anyway.

By definition, marriage always has been, and always will be, between a man and a woman. Calling a joining of two men or two women a “marriage” does not make a marriage. Even trying to enact recognition of such as a “marriage” by law doesn't make it so. All it does is to make a sick, disgusting mockery of marriage.

And that is the purpose of the exercise.

Witness the effect that the "Civil Rights" movement had upon the black culture. It implied that "The Government was 'taking care of them'.

Add to that the addled notions of Feminism, which stripped the need of the Father from the Black Culture. Black men came to the erroneous understanding that they were free to 'tap dat ass', with no sense of having any responsibility for the child they conceived.

Add to that Roe, which set to the black woman, the same relief from her responsibility for her child. Establishing within the culture, the just as erroneous notion that SHE HAD A RIGHT TO MURDER THAT WHICH IS INCONVENIENT TO HER.

Consequently, the destruction of the inner-city black culture is almost ENTIRELY. Such is the state of "THE FAMILY" in the inner-city that the replacement for Family; the Gang is now RAMPANT throughout the Leftist population centers. Where the whole sense of individual responsibility is today ENTIRELY FOREIGN TO THOSE PEOPLE.

While these subversive misnomer were destructive across the board to the US Culture, the efficacy of the above noted ruses, was starkly less lower in the white culture than that experienced by blacks.

And this is why the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality was setup; to finish off the US by separating the white culture from its kinship with family. And by removing the sanctity of family by licensing degenerates for the grand pretense.

Rest assured, this is an organized attack upon the United States. And it is being waged from Chicago and the communist cells which have long operated from Chicago.

And the good news is that they're very close to the end. Which at some point, will set the US into a great and bloody civil war... .

What they have greatly under estimated is their means to control the Americans, who represent a tiny minority in the United States, but who are well capable of feeding themselves in hard times and are very effective in erasing problems.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You know...there's no requirement that anyone getting a driver's license must actually drive. Yet the state anticipates that that person will eventually drive, so they require certain standards be met and passed in order to insure the safety of everyone who implicitly shares the road with them.

Yet states don't actually issue driver's licenses to people that they don't allow to drive.

ROFLMNAO! Proving once again that there is just NO WAY to hide a dumb-ass.

 

[Syriusly]

Nobody actually reads Keys lunatic ravings do they?

I wonder when the home will take his keyboard privileges away again.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

As I have explained- your position helps not a single child- your position does not magically make the children of gay parents suddenly have June and Ward Cleaver as their married parents.

All your position does is advocate for these children not to have married parents.

Because you prefer the children of gay parents to be harmed- rather than letting them have married parents.

At the very best, your position does not better than you claim mine does.

Declaring a pair of sick perverts of teh same sex to be “married” does not make it so, and does not provide the genuine marriage in which a child should be raised.

Your “solution” does nothing to address the problem that you claim it addresses,and is almost certainly a part of the cause of such problems in the first place. LIke a good liberal, you propose to treat the disease with greater doses of the poison that cause that disease.

 

[Silhouette]

As I have explained- your position helps not a single child- your position does not magically make the children of gay parents suddenly have June and Ward Cleaver as their married parents.

All your position does is advocate for these children not to have married parents.

Because you prefer the children of gay parents to be harmed- rather than letting them have married parents.

He's not alone. The Roman Catholic Pope also prefers children have a mother and father only in a marriage.

Any child who has two gays "married" in their home also is a child who does not have married parents, always, 100% of the time. "Gay marriage" guarantees that any child in that home is without married parents 100% of the time since the word "parents" can only mean one man and one woman.

Or will you now be redefining the word "parents" without children having legal representation at the table and ignoring their cries of protest, like the Supreme Court ignored their amicus briefs to that very point last Spring and in June?

 

[Skylar]

Worse, your proposal has nothing to do with the issue you seek to remedy. As denying marriage to gay parents doesn't make them opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents. Which harms those children as the courts have found repeatedly.

They don't have married parents anyway.

By definition, marriage always has been, and always will be, between a man and a woman. Calling a joining of two men or two women a “marriage” does not make a marriage. Even trying to enact recognition of such as a “marriage” by law doesn't make it so. All it does is to make a sick, disgusting mockery of marriage.

The definition of marriage is ours to decide. As we define marriage. It has no intrinsic meaning. It exists only in the context of our culture and our laws.

For long periods of history, one man and many women was considered a perfectly viable model. If marriage 'always has and always will be' one thing....then how do you explain the fact that its been different things at different times?

You can't. I can: marriage is what we say it is. And we say that marriage includes one man and one woman. And one man and one man. And one woman and one woman.

You disagree. Then don't marry someone of the same sex. Your personal opinion however has no relevance to anyone else's marriage.

 

[Skylar]

Worse, your proposal has nothing to do with the issue you seek to remedy. As denying marriage to gay parents doesn't make them opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents. Which harms those children as the courts have found repeatedly.

They don't have married parents anyway.

By definition, marriage always has been, and always will be, between a man and a woman. Calling a joining of two men or two women a “marriage” does not make a marriage. Even trying to enact recognition of such as a “marriage” by law doesn't make it so. All it does is to make a sick, disgusting mockery of marriage.

And that is the purpose of the exercise.

The purpose of the exercise is the recognize rights of gays and lesbians and to apply the law to them equally.

You are under the impression that you and your subjective beliefs define marriage. And as the Obergefell decision so elegantly demonstrated, you're obviously wrong.

You keep confusing your subjective opinion with objective truth. They aren't the same thing.

 

[Skylar]

Any child who has two gays "married" in their home also is a child who does not have married parents, always, 100% of the time. "Gay marriage" guarantees that any child in that home is without married parents 100% of the time since the word "parents" can only mean one man and one woman.

Obvious nonsense. As most gays don't have kids. Nor is anyone required to do so in order to get married. You're insisting that we prevent gays from marrying for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one.

Um, no. That's ridiculous. And an obvious 14th amendment violation.

Worse for your silly argument, denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't make them opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that these children have married parents.

Gays and lesbians have kids regardless. by the 10s of thousands. What you're arguing against is allowing gays and lesbians to raise their own kids. And denying marriage to same sex parents hurts their children. Says who? Says the Supreme Court:

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.....

.....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security

And yet you're more than happy to inflict just such damage...if it hurts gay people and strips them of rights. No thank you.

So not only are you arguing against allowing gays and lesbians to raise their own kids......you're' insisting we hurt the children of same sex parents. And how many children are helped by your proposal? Zero. Not a single child.

Again, no thank you.

 

[Skylar]

Or will you now be redefining the word "parents" without children having legal representation at the table and ignoring their cries of protest, like the Supreme Court ignored their amicus briefs to that very point last Spring and in June?

Nonsense. I'm applying the same standard that I do for any other couple that uses a surrogate, sperm donor or adopts: the couple that raises and makes a home for the child.

But that doesn't let you hurt gay people. So you ignore it. Feel free. Its not changing.

 

[Syriusly]

As I have explained- your position helps not a single child- your position does not magically make the children of gay parents suddenly have June and Ward Cleaver as their married parents.

All your position does is advocate for these children not to have married parents.

Because you prefer the children of gay parents to be harmed- rather than letting them have married parents.

At the very best, your position does not better than you claim mine does.

Declaring a pair of sick perverts of teh same sex to be “married” does not make it so, and does not provide the genuine marriage in which a child should be raised..

Any sick perverts who are not breaking the law- for instance perhaps you and your girl friend- can marry- and it is perfectly legal- and it is marriage.

Just like healthy sane homosexual and heterosexual's can marry.

There is no law which prevents sick perverts from marrying and having children- you could marry even if you and your wife prefer to wallow in shit while having sex- and your marriage would be odd- but still a genuine marriage, and if you had children, they would still be your children regardless of your sick perverted ways.

Preventing homosexual couples who have children from marrying accomplishes exactly one thing: it prevents those children from having married parents.

And that causes harm to those children.

And apparently that is what you want.

 

[Syriusly]

As I have explained- your position helps not a single child- your position does not magically make the children of gay parents suddenly have June and Ward Cleaver as their married parents.

All your position does is advocate for these children not to have married parents.

Because you prefer the children of gay parents to be harmed- rather than letting them have married parents.

Your “solution” does nothing to address the problem that you claim it addresses,and is almost certainly a part of the cause of such problems in the first place. LIke a good liberal, you propose to treat the disease with greater doses of the poison that cause that disease.

My 'solution'- helps children.

Your solution harms children.

Like the good whacky far right Conservative you are, you are okay with that as long as it promotes your religious agenda.

 

[Syriusly]

As I have explained- your position helps not a single child- your position does not magically make the children of gay parents suddenly have June and Ward Cleaver as their married parents.

All your position does is advocate for these children not to have married parents.

Because you prefer the children of gay parents to be harmed- rather than letting them have married parents.

Any child who has two gays "married" in their home also is a child who does not have married parents, always, 100% of the time. "Gay marriage" guarantees that any child in that home is without married parents 100% of the time since the word "parents" can only mean one man and one woman.

You making crap up doesn't magically make it come true.

Once again- denying marriage to gays helps not a single child- but it harms the children who have gay parents.

Since you know that- the only conclusion that can be reached is that you want to harm those children.

Is it because you want to harm the children of homosexuals?

Or just that you know you can harm homosexuals by harming their children?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

He's not alone. The Roman Catholic Pope also prefers children have a mother and father only in a marriage.

Any child who has two gays "married" in their home also is a child who does not have married parents, always, 100% of the time. "Gay marriage" guarantees that any child in that home is without married parents 100% of the time since the word "parents" can only mean one man and one woman.

Or will you now be redefining the word "parents" without children having legal representation at the table and ignoring their cries of protest, like the Supreme Court ignored their amicus briefs to that very point last Spring and in June?

It really shouldn't be surprising, in a society that, with the rise of “transgenderism”, is now trying to redefine “male” and “female” in such a manner as to make the distinction between them nearly meaningless; that other important terms and related principles that depend on this distinction are also subject to such efforts at redefinition. It's a product of a damaged mindset that thinks that scientific reality can be altered or eliminated merely by changing the semantics of how one speaks of it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

…for instance perhaps you and your girl friend- can marry- and it is perfectly legal- and it is marriage.

I think my wife of twenty years would rightfully object to my having a girlfriend, much less to marrying that girlfriend.

So, in fact, would the laws everywhere in this nation, which only allow me to be in one marriage at a time.

Just like healthy sane homosexual and heterosexual's can marry.

There is no such thing as a sane homosexual. Homosexuality is inherently an insane and defective condition.

Preventing homosexual couples who have children from marrying accomplishes exactly one thing: it prevents those children from having married parents.

And that causes harm to those children.

And apparently that is what you want.

Allowing homosexual couples to “marry”, and allowing them to have custody, also denies those children a genuine set of married parents, and ultimately causes them harm. That is not what I want. You're the one who is defending this abuse of children, not I. You're the one who is overtly willing and eager to sacrifice the wellbeing of children, for the sake of a perverted and evil agenda.