If States Defined Why They Give Tax Breaks to Marrieds....

[Syriusly]

[QU

Beautiful dykes kissing! What a joy! That aside, at the end of the day, which one of those women is the children's father for life?

What makes you think they have children?

And if they do have children- why do you insist on harming those children by preventing them from having married parents?

Man married to woman is the only legitimate marriage, period. Gay is stupid and a mental disorder.

And exactly why do you want to harm their children?

Be specific please.

 

[Skylar]

The idea of witholding tax breaks is new. Though I will look forward to you and your group spamming single-lined posts one after the other, as is your custom, liberally using ad hominems and beating up anyone who opposes your dogma. So maybe your post warning of "spam" is accurate after all..

this must be your 100th thread on this subject.

and the law is still the law and you still need to get over it.

42nd. Each with dozens to hundreds of pages of multiparagraph posts by Sil of exactly this kind of obsessive, self referential batshit.

Go to conspiracy bulletboards and read the years worth of obsessive rants about the Flat Earth, Reptilians, or the Illuminti. With its elaborate, self referential logic.

They read just like Sil's pseudo-legal rants. Its what genuine mental illness looks like.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

[QU

Beautiful dykes kissing! What a joy! That aside, at the end of the day, which one of those women is the children's father for life?

What makes you think they have children?

And if they do have children- why do you insist on harming those children by preventing them from having married parents?

Man married to woman is the only legitimate marriage, period. Gay is stupid and a mental disorder.

And exactly why do you want to harm their children?

Be specific please.

Typical libtarded question. Specifically you are an idiot, I don't want to harm their children, they are.

 

[Silhouette]

Typical libtarded question. Specifically you are an idiot, I don't want to harm their children, they are.

All things being equal, we have two categories of people here. A. Those who think children need and deserve both a mother and father in their lives "as married". and B. Those who advocate making sure children NEVER see either a mother or father for life "as married".

Which one, A or B, is more harmful to children?

 

[AmericanFirst1]

Typical libtarded question. Specifically you are an idiot, I don't want to harm their children, they are.

All things being equal, we have two categories of people here. A. Those who think children need and deserve both a mother and father in their lives "as married". and B. Those who advocate making sure children NEVER see either a mother or father for life "as married".

Which one, A or B, is more harmful to children?

Sounds like a gotcha question. Man and woman married best for children.

 

[Silhouette]

Typical libtarded question. Specifically you are an idiot, I don't want to harm their children, they are.

All things being equal, we have two categories of people here. A. Those who think children need and deserve both a mother and father in their lives "as married". and B. Those who advocate making sure children NEVER see either a mother or father for life "as married".

Which one, A or B, is more harmful to children?

Sounds like a gotcha question. Man and woman married best for children.

Exactly. That's why I sterilized the question to "A" vs "B". Apply logic and it's obvious that anyone seeking to strip hope out of a child's life of either a father or mother, permanently as a fixture of "law" (and forcing states to condone that and give tax breaks to that) is quite obviously the party who should not be trusted around children. Most certainly they shouldn't be given monetary incentives to deny children of the vital father or mother mentor for life..

 

[mdk]

We'll call it The Prince's Trust Hope Tax. lol

 

[Skylar]

Typical libtarded question. Specifically you are an idiot, I don't want to harm their children, they are.

All things being equal, we have two categories of people here. A. Those who think children need and deserve both a mother and father in their lives "as married". and B. Those who advocate making sure children NEVER see either a mother or father for life "as married".

Which one, A or B, is more harmful to children?

Or C: Those who recognize that the right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them.

Or D:: Those who recognize that same sex marriage helps children. Why denying same sex marriage hurts children.

C an D would include the Supreme Court. So you ignore the Supreme Court and insist that the law is bound to whatever you make up.

Smiling.....nope.

 

[Syriusly]

[QU

Beautiful dykes kissing! What a joy! That aside, at the end of the day, which one of those women is the children's father for life?

What makes you think they have children?

And if they do have children- why do you insist on harming those children by preventing them from having married parents?

Man married to woman is the only legitimate marriage, period. Gay is stupid and a mental disorder.

And exactly why do you want to harm their children?

Be specific please.

Typical libtarded question. Specifically you are an idiot, I don't want to harm their children, they are.

Typical bigot nutjob response. Specifically you are a homophobic idiot.

You want to prevent their children from having married parents- so yes- you do want to harm their children.

 

[Syriusly]

Typical libtarded question. Specifically you are an idiot, I don't want to harm their children, they are.

All things being equal, we have two categories of people here. A. Those who think children need and deserve both a mother and father in their lives "as married". and B. Those who advocate making sure children NEVER see either a mother or father for life "as married".

Which one, A or B, is more harmful to children?

We do have two kinds of people here- those who wish for what is best for children- and those who do not.

You want to harm the children who have gay parents- because their parents are gay.
I want to provide the protection of marriage to the children of both straight and gay couples- because it benefits their children.

Denying children married parents, does not magically provide them with a mother or father.

 

[Silhouette]

Typical libtarded question. Specifically you are an idiot, I don't want to harm their children, they are.

All things being equal, we have two categories of people here. A. Those who think children need and deserve both a mother and father in their lives "as married". and B. Those who advocate making sure children NEVER see either a mother or father for life "as married".

Which one, A or B, is more harmful to children?

We do have two kinds of people here- those who wish for what is best for children- and those who do not.

You want to harm the children who have gay parents- because their parents are gay.
I want to provide the protection of marriage to the children of both straight and gay couples- because it benefits their children.

Denying children married parents, does not magically provide them with a mother or father.

You contend that stripping children of even hope for a mother or father FOR LIFE is "good for kids". I contend that it is not. Since you are so cock-sure of your position, would you welcome a Hearing on the specific question to see which one of us is right? Including input from all studies, not just the neo LGBT-promotional APA studies? Like the Prince's Trust 2010 Survey and other studies about fatherless boys and how well they do in society after they grow up?

Then, after or during (or even before, causing) those deliberations, we'll see if states want to extend tax breaks to couples who by their very brand new physical makeup, guarantee children involved that they will never see either a mother or father for life..

 

[Skylar]

Typical libtarded question. Specifically you are an idiot, I don't want to harm their children, they are.

All things being equal, we have two categories of people here. A. Those who think children need and deserve both a mother and father in their lives "as married". and B. Those who advocate making sure children NEVER see either a mother or father for life "as married".

Which one, A or B, is more harmful to children?

We do have two kinds of people here- those who wish for what is best for children- and those who do not.

You want to harm the children who have gay parents- because their parents are gay.
I want to provide the protection of marriage to the children of both straight and gay couples- because it benefits their children.

Denying children married parents, does not magically provide them with a mother or father.

You contend that stripping children of even hope for a mother or father FOR LIFE is "good for kids".

Or, more accurately, that denying same sex parents marriage hurts their children. Humiliates these kids. Robs them of financial benefits. And causes a plethora of other ills.

While benefiting *no* child. And of course, providing no remedy for anything you're lamenting about. As same sex parents don't magically become opposite sex parents just because you don't allow them to marry.

Your proposal solves no problem, hurts hundreds of thousands of children and help none. Which might explain why the court rejected it.

 

[Syriusly]

Typical libtarded question. Specifically you are an idiot, I don't want to harm their children, they are.

All things being equal, we have two categories of people here. A. Those who think children need and deserve both a mother and father in their lives "as married". and B. Those who advocate making sure children NEVER see either a mother or father for life "as married".

Which one, A or B, is more harmful to children?

We do have two kinds of people here- those who wish for what is best for children- and those who do not.

You want to harm the children who have gay parents- because their parents are gay.
I want to provide the protection of marriage to the children of both straight and gay couples- because it benefits their children.

Denying children married parents, does not magically provide them with a mother or father.

You contend that stripping children of even hope for a mother or father FOR LIFE is "good for kids". ..

No- as I pointed out:

You want to harm the children who have gay parents- because their parents are gay.
I want to provide the protection of marriage to the children of both straight and gay couples- because it benefits their children.

Denying children married parents, does not magically provide them with a mother or father

 

[Montrovant]

Typical libtarded question. Specifically you are an idiot, I don't want to harm their children, they are.

All things being equal, we have two categories of people here. A. Those who think children need and deserve both a mother and father in their lives "as married". and B. Those who advocate making sure children NEVER see either a mother or father for life "as married".

Which one, A or B, is more harmful to children?

We do have two kinds of people here- those who wish for what is best for children- and those who do not.

You want to harm the children who have gay parents- because their parents are gay.
I want to provide the protection of marriage to the children of both straight and gay couples- because it benefits their children.

Denying children married parents, does not magically provide them with a mother or father.

You contend that stripping children of even hope for a mother or father FOR LIFE is "good for kids". I contend that it is not. Since you are so cock-sure of your position, would you welcome a Hearing on the specific question to see which one of us is right? Including input from all studies, not just the neo LGBT-promotional APA studies? Like the Prince's Trust 2010 Survey and other studies about fatherless boys and how well they do in society after they grow up?

Then, after or during (or even before, causing) those deliberations, we'll see if states want to extend tax breaks to couples who by their very brand new physical makeup, guarantee children involved that they will never see either a mother or father for life..

I think that the divorce statistics in this country, almost entirely based on opposite gender couples, would argue against the idea that anything about marriage is 'FOR LIFE'.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

[QU
Beautiful dykes kissing! What a joy! That aside, at the end of the day, which one of those women is the children's father for life?

What makes you think they have children?

And if they do have children- why do you insist on harming those children by preventing them from having married parents?

Man married to woman is the only legitimate marriage, period. Gay is stupid and a mental disorder.

And exactly why do you want to harm their children?

Be specific please.

Typical libtarded question. Specifically you are an idiot, I don't want to harm their children, they are.

Typical bigot nutjob response. Specifically you are a homophobic idiot.

You want to prevent their children from having married parents- so yes- you do want to harm their children.

Wrong retard.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

Typical libtarded question. Specifically you are an idiot, I don't want to harm their children, they are.

All things being equal, we have two categories of people here. A. Those who think children need and deserve both a mother and father in their lives "as married". and B. Those who advocate making sure children NEVER see either a mother or father for life "as married".

Which one, A or B, is more harmful to children?

We do have two kinds of people here- those who wish for what is best for children- and those who do not.

You want to harm the children who have gay parents- because their parents are gay.
I want to provide the protection of marriage to the children of both straight and gay couples- because it benefits their children.

Denying children married parents, does not magically provide them with a mother or father.

You contend that stripping children of even hope for a mother or father FOR LIFE is "good for kids". ..

No- as I pointed out:

You want to harm the children who have gay parents- because their parents are gay.
I want to provide the protection of marriage to the children of both straight and gay couples- because it benefits their children.

Denying children married parents, does not magically provide them with a mother or father

Gay can't benefit children, teaches them immoral habits.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

Typical libtarded question. Specifically you are an idiot, I don't want to harm their children, they are.

All things being equal, we have two categories of people here. A. Those who think children need and deserve both a mother and father in their lives "as married". and B. Those who advocate making sure children NEVER see either a mother or father for life "as married".

Which one, A or B, is more harmful to children?

We do have two kinds of people here- those who wish for what is best for children- and those who do not.

You want to harm the children who have gay parents- because their parents are gay.
I want to provide the protection of marriage to the children of both straight and gay couples- because it benefits their children.

Denying children married parents, does not magically provide them with a mother or father.

Gays shouldn't have children in the first place.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you could prove that LGBT married couples, Sil, threaten a child's well being, you would have a point.

But you can't, so you don't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How the Court regarded the deliberation (or lack thereof) of how gay marriage might harm children in their Obergefell Decision is most certainly not gibberish. It is absolutely germane to the points I've been making all along here.

Yes, it is gibberish, Sil. No one has proved gay marrieds are dangerous to children. Every time with your "evidence" that you have tried this nonsense, you have failed. That will never change.

 

[Syriusly]

Typical libtarded question. Specifically you are an idiot, I don't want to harm their children, they are.

All things being equal, we have two categories of people here. A. Those who think children need and deserve both a mother and father in their lives "as married". and B. Those who advocate making sure children NEVER see either a mother or father for life "as married".

Which one, A or B, is more harmful to children?

We do have two kinds of people here- those who wish for what is best for children- and those who do not.

You want to harm the children who have gay parents- because their parents are gay.
I want to provide the protection of marriage to the children of both straight and gay couples- because it benefits their children.

Denying children married parents, does not magically provide them with a mother or father.

Gays shouldn't have children in the first place.

Typical Right Wing Nut Job response: tell Americans who can have children and who cannot.

And if they don't approve- send in Big Brother to take them away.

Or force them to have abortions- if they are gay.....or having gay children....