Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren't to Blame: They Rely on "Science"..

[Inevitable]

I would say it's borderline paranoid delusion.

So we have a paranoid moron trying to explain mental health.

The naked are being lead by the blind.

I have seen this nitwit post in another forum. And it's the same paranoid crap.

When somebody is trying to say the whole rest of the world seeks to hide the truth from people, but they somehow know this secret truth, that is called a red flag in the psychological professions.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sil posts in several forums. He's like the racist who has been told his town is integrating whether he likes it or not.

Probably the thing that motivates him is that heis being pushed into the cultural junk yard with other obsolete ideals. It's easy to remain relevant by simply changing your mind. It isn't betrayal to your ancestors or some other relic from past traditions. It's really quite rational to self evaluate. Hell it keeps you out of the junk yard. Only good things go in the museum. Even then it's a proverbial cemetery.

 

[Silhouette]

I wouldn't be surprised if Sil posts in several forums. He's like the racist who has been told his town is integrating whether he likes it or not.

Probably the thing that motivates him is that he is being pushed into the cultural junk yard with other obsolete ideals. It's easy to remain relevant by simply changing your mind. It isn't betrayal to your ancestors or some other relic from past traditions. It's really quite rational to self evaluate. Hell it keeps you out of the junk yard. Only good things go in the museum. Even then it's a proverbial cemetery.

You would call the protection of children "the cultural junkyard"?

Your musings are reminiscent of Ancient Greece just on the cusp of its pedophile-culture taking roots and shooting out in all directions. I'll leave you with a picture to examine as to "how silly it is to stick to old solid moral principles"... (a gay pride parade in the 1980s in Los Angeles, CA)

 

[Syriusly]

I wouldn't be surprised if Sil posts in several forums. He's like the racist who has been told his town is integrating whether he likes it or not.

Probably the thing that motivates him is that he is being pushed into the cultural junk yard with other obsolete ideals. It's easy to remain relevant by simply changing your mind. It isn't betrayal to your ancestors or some other relic from past traditions. It's really quite rational to self evaluate. Hell it keeps you out of the junk yard. Only good things go in the museum. Even then it's a proverbial cemetery.

You would call the protection of children "the cultural junkyard"?

Nothing you have ever suggested or proposed has been for the benefit of children, or would protect children.

You actually are arguing that children of gay parents do not deserve to have their parents married- while it is very important for the children of straight parents.

You arguments are all intended to foment hatred towards homosexuals- and have nothing to do with the safety and welfare of children.

 

[Silhouette]

Nothing you have ever suggested or proposed has been for the benefit of children, or would protect children.

You actually are arguing that children of gay parents do not deserve to have their parents married- while it is very important for the children of straight parents.

You arguments are all intended to foment hatred towards homosexuals- and have nothing to do with the safety and welfare of children.

Actually many things I've suggested are for the benefit of children:

1. Not adopting them out to homes where "parents' are members of a culture that 100% promotes pride parades in front of kids and supports Harvey Milk (evidenced by 0% of that culture speaking out publicly against those things)

2. Not incentivizing "marriages" where the home would be absent of one of the child[ren]'s blood parents 100% of the time.

3. Not incentivizing "marriages" where the home would be 100% of the time absent the role model of the child[ren]'s opposite gendered parent, leading to self-rejection like the boy in California who wants his junk cut off to fit in with his lesbian 'parents' role models "as the only gender that matters"...

My arguments are what they are. If you perceive them as hateful, it only illustrates your selfishness and callous disregard for the ultimate welbeing of children. You, I presume, had the benefit of two opposite gendered parents. Yet you would strip other children of that benefit in order to make them guinea pigs in your grand self-aborbed deviant sexuality subculture.

Have fun living in denial. And get back to me when the APA discovers why it is that roughly half of all gays and lesbians appear to be attracted at least to all the external trappings of the opposite gender. ie: let me know when the APA classifies "closeted heterosexuality within the gay population"...and you know...where all that repressed stuff is coming from....

Let me know that BEFORE you demand we entrust children to your care and "guidance"....like the little boy in California soon to be named "Tammy" instead of "Tommy" to the great pleasure of his two lesbian "mentally fit" "parents"..

 

[Syriusly]

Nothing you have ever suggested or proposed has been for the benefit of children, or would protect children.

You actually are arguing that children of gay parents do not deserve to have their parents married- while it is very important for the children of straight parents.

You arguments are all intended to foment hatred towards homosexuals- and have nothing to do with the safety and welfare of children.

Actually many things I've suggested are for the benefit of children:

1. Not adopting them out to homes where "parents' are members of a culture that 100% promotes pride parades in front of kids and supports Harvey Milk (evidenced by 0% of that culture speaking out publicly against those things)
.

Again- just homophobic BS. You don't approve of homsexuality so you are opposed to homosexual adopting.

Even though homosexuals are the parents of thousands and thousands of children.

Like I said- none of your suggestions are for the benefit of children- thousands of children go unadopted every year in the U.S.- and you are telling them 'hey kids, you are better off languishing in foster care, and aging out of the system, to be left to fend for yourself on the streets than be adopted by a loving homosexual...because you know....they are homosexuals...."

 

[Syriusly]

[
2. Not incentivizing "marriages" where the home would be absent of one of the child[ren]'s blood parents 100% of the time.
..

I can't figure out what you are trying to say.....

So.....Jake and Jill are the children of Phyllis and Doris......you think those children are 'protected' by preventing Phyllis and Doris from marrying? That somehow not having their parents be legally married makes those kids better off?

Or do you think that somehow the children of their neighbors are somehow protected if Phyllis and Doris can't be married.

 

[Syriusly]

3. Not incentivizing "marriages" where the home would be 100% of the time absent the role model of the child[ren]'s opposite gendered parent,
..

Again- as opposed to what?

Children are being raised by homosexuals.

All you are doing is telling the children of homosexuals that you are against their parents from marrying because they are homosexuals.

How does that protect their children?

 

[Syriusly]

My arguments are what they are. If you perceive them as hateful,..

Yes- and Yes

All of your arguments are variations on attacks on homosexuals.

You reference children only as tools to attack homosexuals.

 

[Silhouette]

4 posts to say those things Syriusly? You wouldn't be trying to spam the information in my post off the page and into oblivion would you? There are a thousand ways to suppress a conversation. You and your ilk are engaged in all of them, all the time. Anything but engaging the public in an open debate about where homosexuality comes from, what its doing now as a cult, and where it may be heading and taking all of us with it in the vehicle of "marriage" [core values]...

...ANYTHING but that...

 

[Syriusly]

4 posts to say those things Syriusly? You wouldn't be trying to spam the information in my post off the page and into oblivion would you? There are a thousand ways to suppress a conversation. You and your ilk are engaged in all of them, all the time. Anything but engaging the public in an open debate about where homosexuality comes from, what its doing now as a cult, and where it may be heading and taking all of us with it in the vehicle of "marriage" [core values]...

...ANYTHING but that...

All of your arguments are variations on attacks on homosexuals.

You reference children only as tools to attack homosexuals.

 

[Silhouette]

3. Not incentivizing "marriages" where the home would be 100% of the time absent the role model of the child[ren]'s opposite gendered parent,
..

Again- as opposed to what? Children are being raised by homosexuals. All you are doing is telling the children of homosexuals that you are against their parents from marrying because they are homosexuals. How does that protect their children?

It doesn't protect their children, nor does it protect the tens of millions of children of single parents where one blood parent is also missing from the home 100% of the time. It protects the vast majority of FUTURE CHILDREN in untold 100s of millions by setting up the best incentivized conditions [both blood parents] for their best nurturing possible. The state isn't into incentivizing single parenthood or other parenting arrangements where the children will be missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time.

Childless male/female marriages don't tamper with the structure of the best-incentivized household for children [marriage between men and women].

 

[Syriusly]

3. Not incentivizing "marriages" where the home would be 100% of the time absent the role model of the child[ren]'s opposite gendered parent,
..

Again- as opposed to what? Children are being raised by homosexuals. All you are doing is telling the children of homosexuals that you are against their parents from marrying because they are homosexuals. How does that protect their children?

It doesn't protect their children, nor does it protect the tens of millions of children of single parents where one blood parent is also missing from the home 100% of the time. .

Thanks for confirming it- you believe that the children of homosexuals deserve to be treated differently than other children.

You don't care what harm happens to them.

Because to you- they are just the children of homosexuals.

 

[Silhouette]

Thanks for confirming it- you believe that the children of homosexuals deserve to be treated differently than other children.

You don't care what harm happens to them.

Because to you- they are just the children of homosexuals.

I didn't say that any more than you just said you don't care about the children of single parents [missing one blood parent 100% of the time]. We are talking about marriage as a state-incentive program for BOTH blood parents of a child to stay together for the benefit of that child[ren]. If a couple man/woman is childless, or man/woman that adopts, that doesn't harm the structure of a family that produces blood children between two people. The man/woman structure is paramount for all future children until time unknown to develop to their fullest potential individually and socially. Orphans and half-orphans [a child without one gender or the other, complimentary or exemplary in his home] grow up at a disadvantage to their peers. Or worse....

The lesbian parents of an 11-year-old boy who is undergoing the process of becoming a girl last night defended the decision, claiming it was better for a child to have a sex change when young....Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy...At age seven, after threatening genital mutilation on himself, psychiatrists diagnosed Thomas with gender identity disorder. By the age of eight, he began transitioning. ...The hormone-suppressant, implanted in his upper left arm, will postpone the 11-year-old developing broad shoulders, deep voice and facial hair. The California boy 11 who is undergoing hormone blocking treatment Daily Mail Online

Just after his first 6 formative years, this boy raised by two lesbians suddenly wants to femalize himself by genital mutilation. "Gender identity disorder" could also be called "my gender doesn't matter disorder"..

 

[Inevitable]

I wouldn't be surprised if Sil posts in several forums. He's like the racist who has been told his town is integrating whether he likes it or not.

Probably the thing that motivates him is that he is being pushed into the cultural junk yard with other obsolete ideals. It's easy to remain relevant by simply changing your mind. It isn't betrayal to your ancestors or some other relic from past traditions. It's really quite rational to self evaluate. Hell it keeps you out of the junk yard. Only good things go in the museum. Even then it's a proverbial cemetery.

You would call the protection of children "the cultural junkyard"?

Your musings are reminiscent of Ancient Greece just on the cusp of its pedophile-culture taking roots and shooting out in all directions. I'll leave you with a picture to examine as to "how silly it is to stick to old solid moral principles"... (a gay pride parade in the 1980s in Los Angeles, CA)

You are quite stupid. Homosexuality isn't pedophilia. You don't need to protect children from an imaginary threat. This isn't about children either. This is just you trying to hide despicable ends behind what you see as a noble means.

Misinformation is all you post. The sad thing is, this is the information age and your weapon is obsolete.

Your backward views aren't justified by reality, so you create your own reality. Thus sealing your fate.

 

[Inevitable]

I wouldn't be surprised if Sil posts in several forums. He's like the racist who has been told his town is integrating whether he likes it or not.

Probably the thing that motivates him is that he is being pushed into the cultural junk yard with other obsolete ideals. It's easy to remain relevant by simply changing your mind. It isn't betrayal to your ancestors or some other relic from past traditions. It's really quite rational to self evaluate. Hell it keeps you out of the junk yard. Only good things go in the museum. Even then it's a proverbial cemetery.

You would call the protection of children "the cultural junkyard"?

Nothing you have ever suggested or proposed has been for the benefit of children, or would protect children.

You actually are arguing that children of gay parents do not deserve to have their parents married- while it is very important for the children of straight parents.

You arguments are all intended to foment hatred towards homosexuals- and have nothing to do with the safety and welfare of children.

He is literally lying to himself. Because the world frightens him. That is the death of knowledge.

But it's a small price to pay to be a political lackey for a movement that figuratively ship wrecked 40 years ago.

Truth is his enemy.

 

[Syriusly]

Thanks for confirming it- you believe that the children of homosexuals deserve to be treated differently than other children.

You don't care what harm happens to them.

Because to you- they are just the children of homosexuals.

I didn't say that any more than you just said you don't care about the children of single parents [missing one blood parent 100% of the time]. We are talking about marriage as a state-incentive program for BOTH blood parents of a child to stay together for the benefit of that child[ren]. If a couple man/woman is childless, or man/woman that adopts, that doesn't harm the structure of a family that produces blood children between two people. ..

'blood children'?

Seriously what do you think 'harms the structure of a family that produces blood children'?

As a husband and father- I would be really amused to hear what you- who is neither- is going to tell me about how the structure of my family is harmed because Bob and Jack can marry.

Because I haven't noticed one iota in change since same gender marriage has been legalized.

My wife and I are still together.
We are still raising our daughter.

 

[JoeB131]

You would call the protection of children "the cultural junkyard"?

Your musings are reminiscent of Ancient Greece just on the cusp of its pedophile-culture taking roots and shooting out in all directions. I'll leave you with a picture to examine as to "how silly it is to stick to old solid moral principles"... (a gay pride parade in the 1980s in Los Angeles, CA)

Oh, look, he's back to "protecting the children". No, really, he's got a picture of some old weirdo from 1980.

Dude, most pedophiles abuse members of the opposite sex. No one is suggesting going on a jihad against heterosexuals because of it.

 

[Silhouette]

'blood children'? Seriously what do you think 'harms the structure of a family that produces blood children'? As a husband and father- I would be really amused to hear what you- who is neither- is going to tell me about how the structure of my family is harmed because Bob and Jack can marry. Because I haven't noticed one iota in change since same gender marriage has been legalized.
My wife and I are still together. We are still raising our daughter.

Future children and their rights to both blood parents in their home, instead of state-incentivized "marriages" where one of them is missing 100% of the time, like single motherhood. This isn't about how gay marriage harms your marriage. It's about how gay marriage harms children. But you already know that. You're using one of the thousands of ways your ilk employs to disrupt the focus of the points made.

Gay marriage harms children. It deprives them of one of their blood parents 100% of the time. It provides a complete vacuum of modeling and experience with the opposite gender missing in the home. This can be detrimental to a child's mental formation:

The lesbian parents of an 11-year-old boy who is undergoing the process of becoming a girl last night defended the decision, claiming it was better for a child to have a sex change when young....Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy...At age seven, after threatening genital mutilation on himself, psychiatrists diagnosed Thomas with gender identity disorder. By the age of eight, he began transitioning. ...The hormone-suppressant, implanted in his upper left arm, will postpone the 11-year-old developing broad shoulders, deep voice and facial hair.. The California boy 11 who is undergoing hormone blocking treatment Daily Mail Online

Like I said, this boy isn't suffering from "gender identity disorder". This boy is suffering from my gender doesn't matter disorder. To explore that though might lead to some unsavory conclusions that the APA-cult wouldn't "audit" favorably. The CQR method would frown upon any study of so-called "transgender children" that might show influence in the child's decision to hate their own gender...

 

[Syriusly]

'blood children'? Seriously what do you think 'harms the structure of a family that produces blood children'? As a husband and father- I would be really amused to hear what you- who is neither- is going to tell me about how the structure of my family is harmed because Bob and Jack can marry. Because I haven't noticed one iota in change since same gender marriage has been legalized.
My wife and I are still together. We are still raising our daughter.

Future children and their rights to both blood parents in their home, instead of state-incentivized "marriages" where one of them is missing 100% of the time, like single motherhood. This isn't about how gay marriage harms your marriage. It's about how gay marriage harms children. But you already know that. You're using one of the thousands of ways your ilk employs to disrupt the focus of the points made.

Gay marriage harms children. It deprives them of one of their blood parents 100% of the time. It provides a complete vacuum of modeling and experience with the opposite gender missing in the home. This can be detrimental to a child's mental formation:..

What lying BS.

Gay couples have children regardless of marriage.
Gay couples who marry may or may not have children.

All that your efforts to discriminate against gay couples in marriage would accomplish is to ensure that the children of gay couples do not have married parents.

Which is why you don't give a damn about children.

You just want to discriminate against homosexuals.

I am not disrupting 'focus of points'- I am pointing out that your claims are total BS and lies.

As Justice Kennedy said, remarking about DOMA's restriction on marriage

 

[bendog]

Science has no business in courtrooms. If we want to keep our unsupportable beliefs and prejudices because we are comfortable with them, who are these lifetime appointed TAKERS, who produce NOTHING for society, to tell US, WHO pay their Salaries, to tell us we cannot keep what we want? It's TYRANNY! These SODOMITES should be in jail, not getting "married." It's disgusting. (-: (just channeling he who loses his keys ... and has no clue how to find them.)