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

[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.

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....

Did I say anything about forcing them to have abortions retard? Stupid lib.

 

[mdk]

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.

Sil's lust for hurting gay people far outweighs her concern for children. They are merely pawns in her anti-gay narrative.

 

[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....

Did I say anything about forcing them to have abortions retard? Stupid lib.

What are your plans for having the government prevent Gays from having 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?

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'.

That's your input to that conversation? A strawman where you are now suggesting that marriage shouldn't be thought of as an attempt to bond parents for life?

Haven't heard back from Syriusly whether or not s/he would want a Hearing to deterimine which one of us is right. A child's well being is important enough that the question needs addressing. Or is it any of your position that we should "chance it" that a child's well being should just "come along with the new trends", sans professional debate about that?

 

[Syriusly]

Haven't heard back from Syriusly whether or not s/he would want a Hearing to deterimine which one of us is right.

That 'hearing' was called Obergefell and was settled last year.

I am not 'right'- I am just pointing out that the Supreme Court has already said you are wrong.

 

[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'.

That's your input to that conversation? A strawman where you are now suggesting that marriage shouldn't be thought of as an attempt to bond parents for life?

Haven't heard back from Syriusly whether or not s/he would want a Hearing to deterimine which one of us is right. A child's well being is important enough that the question needs addressing. Or is it any of your position that we should "chance it" that a child's well being should just "come along with the new trends", sans professional debate about that?

Do you have any idea what a straw man is?

Did the silly emoticon at the end of my post not convey the joking nature of that post?

Do you honestly think any of your legal predictions will ever come to pass?

 

[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". 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'.

That's your input to that conversation? A strawman where you are now suggesting that marriage shouldn't be thought of as an attempt to bond parents for life?

Haven't heard back from Syriusly whether or not s/he would want a Hearing to deterimine which one of us is right. A child's well being is important enough that the question needs addressing. Or is it any of your position that we should "chance it" that a child's well being should just "come along with the new trends", sans professional debate about that?

The Prince Trust studies doesn't mention fathers, mothers, gays, same sex parents, same sex parenting, or measure the effect of any kind of parenting.

Next fallacy, please.

 

[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". 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'.

That's your input to that conversation? A strawman where you are now suggesting that marriage shouldn't be thought of as an attempt to bond parents for life?

Haven't heard back from Syriusly whether or not s/he would want a Hearing to deterimine which one of us is right. A child's well being is important enough that the question needs addressing. Or is it any of your position that we should "chance it" that a child's well being should just "come along with the new trends", sans professional debate about that?

Do you have any idea what a straw man is?

Did the silly emoticon at the end of my post not convey the joking nature of that post?

Do you honestly think any of your legal predictions will ever come to pass?

Not one of her legal predictions has come to pass so far. Every single one, without exception, has been wrong.

But she's never let a record of perfect failure stop her in the past. Why start now?

 

[Muhammed]

Sunshine, beaming young men, beauty, clean pressed suits and smiles...

..that aside at the end of the day, which one of those men is the children's mother for life?

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?

alien vs predator

 

[Silhouette]

Haven't heard back from Syriusly whether or not s/he would want a Hearing to deterimine which one of us is right.

That 'hearing' was called Obergefell and was settled last year.

I am not 'right'- I am just pointing out that the Supreme Court has already said you are wrong.

Nope. The question of fatherless boys and motherless girls...without hope of remedying that for life (gay marriage) was not argued nor put in the Opinion of Obergefell. Implied armchair best guesses from non-qualified Justices don't count on that specific question of law so poised to hurt children if clarity is not gained upon it in spades. This question of law requires a separate hearing just for children. Standing: adoption agencies or even just children not wanting to be caught up in a "gay marriage" anymore. Judging from the amicus briefs in my signature, they shouldn't be too hard to find..

 

[mdk]

Haven't heard back from Syriusly whether or not s/he would want a Hearing to deterimine which one of us is right.

That 'hearing' was called Obergefell and was settled last year.

I am not 'right'- I am just pointing out that the Supreme Court has already said you are wrong.

Nope. The question of fatherless boys and motherless girls...without hope of remedying that for life (gay marriage) was not argued nor put in the Opinion of Obergefell. Implied armchair best guesses from non-qualified Justices don't count on that specific question of law so poised to hurt children if clarity is not gained upon it in spades. This question of law requires a separate hearing just for children. Standing: adoption agencies or even just children not wanting to be caught up in a "gay marriage" anymore. Judging from the amicus briefs in my signature, they shouldn't be too hard to find..

Your imagination does not require anyone or anything to act. I am really sorry you can't get more people to go along with your whole 'harming gay people and their families at all costs' campaign.

 

[Syriusly]

Haven't heard back from Syriusly whether or not s/he would want a Hearing to deterimine which one of us is right.

That 'hearing' was called Obergefell and was settled last year.

I am not 'right'- I am just pointing out that the Supreme Court has already said you are wrong.

Nope. The question of fatherless boys and motherless girls...without hope of remedying that for life (gay marriage) was not argued nor put in the Opinion of Obergefell. ..

The Supreme Court has twice now found that the children of gay parents are harmed by their parents not being able to be legally married.

You of course want those children to be harmed- which is why you keep going on and on.

 

[g5000]

For more references on the legal aspects of how children's well being is legally dominant to adult civil rights: Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.

Also: Specific Legal Mandates Why Gay Marriage Is Illegal Everywhere in the United States

One way for states to remedy the "gay marriage" tyrannical decree would be to pass laws that say "OK, you may be legally married, but our state only incentivizes marriages that provide both a mother and father to children we know will statistically be involved, nevermind the rare exceptions.

Okay, you may be legally married, but our state only incentivizes biblically compliant marriages of the same race.

 

[g5000]

One way for states to remedy the "gay marriage" tyrannical decree would be to pass laws that say "OK, you may be legally married, but our state only incentivizes marriages that provide both a mother and father to children we know will statistically be involved, nevermind the rare exceptions.

Okay, if you are married but produce no children, your spouse cannot collect Social Security Survivor Benefits when you croak.

 

[g5000]

Okay, you may be legally married, but our state only incentivizes Bokononist marriages.

(*takes off shoes*)

 

[g5000]

How about nobody gets a tax break for simply getting married?

Bingo. This.

The whole gay marriage issue is over government gifts. This never occurs to the bigots. They think it has something to do with God, but it is really about the cash and prizes bestowed on the people. And these cash and prizes are bestowed by laws. And gays have a right to equal protection of the laws.

Social Security survivor benefits are not in the bible. They have nothing to do with God. When gays are asking for Social Security survivor benefits, or tax breaks, this has ****-all to do with God. That's what the bigots don't get, and that's why they lost.


I'm all for getting rid of as many government gifts as possible. It creates an unhealthy dependence on government, and it costs taxpayers a lot of money.

Funny, though, you never hear the bigots who claim to be conservatives calling for less government gifts for themselves.

 

[Montrovant]

Haven't heard back from Syriusly whether or not s/he would want a Hearing to deterimine which one of us is right.

That 'hearing' was called Obergefell and was settled last year.

I am not 'right'- I am just pointing out that the Supreme Court has already said you are wrong.

Nope. The question of fatherless boys and motherless girls...without hope of remedying that for life (gay marriage) was not argued nor put in the Opinion of Obergefell. Implied armchair best guesses from non-qualified Justices don't count on that specific question of law so poised to hurt children if clarity is not gained upon it in spades. This question of law requires a separate hearing just for children. Standing: adoption agencies or even just children not wanting to be caught up in a "gay marriage" anymore. Judging from the amicus briefs in my signature, they shouldn't be too hard to find..

You mean the links in your sig that you constantly misrepresent?

 

[Silhouette]

The Supreme Court has twice now found that the children of gay parents are harmed by their parents not being able to be legally married.

You of course want those children to be harmed- which is why you keep going on and on.

They found that twice without professional deliberation; not just spoon fed dogma from the APA-arm of the LGBT cult. Since none of the five Justices who made those things happen have a degree in child psychology, their Finding is worthless on that particular question of law. When an adoption agency cites New York vs Ferber (1982), that deliberation will happen as it should: by those qualified to do so. The Justices pass an Opinion after they hear argument. They don't do the arguing themselves..particularly if they aren't qualified to do so...

The argument will be very simple and concise:

1. Do boys need a father and girls a mother or at least the hope of having one (gay marriage strips them of this hope even for life)?

2. If #1 is "yes, or they will statistically suffer a number of social and psychological maladies", then New York vs Ferber will be cited to show that even if the Judicial branch is allowed to add brand new categories to the 14th Amendment for protection (just some of their favorite repugnant minority deviant sex behaviors-as-identity but not others), those constitutional protections do not dominate a child's right to hope or presence of the missing gender-as-role-model for a parent.

3. From there (or even before, forcing the issue) states can say "we have no reason to give monetary incentives to what amounts to a mental prison for children...a prison from which they will arrive into our social milieu as predictably stunted and struggling individuals headed for indigency, mental health issues, drug addiction or prison. ie: States cannot be required to invest in their own predictable fiscal demise. PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

 

[PaintMyHouse]

1. Do boys need a father and girls a mother or at least the hope of having one?

No...

 

[Silhouette]

1. Do boys need a father and girls a mother or at least the hope of having one?

No...

And how exactly are you qualified to make that final determination which has a ripple effect to society the size of a 100 foot sleeper wave?