LGBTs At It Again: "The Equality Act": Shoehorn to End Religious Or Any Other Objections

[Silhouette]

The answer is obvious and the Court cited it repeatedly:

Denying marriage to same sex parents *doesn't* help their children, but hurts them severely. While recognizing marriage for same sex parents does help their children in a myriad of overlapping ways.

Mark my words, the jury is still out on these kids... I think a lot of therapy is in their future.

Yes, it was awfully nice of these "kid caring" 5 Justices to subject them to an experiment like lab rats; where we already know that depriving a child of either a mother or father for life, as a matter of contract, is an onerous term that society cannot allow children to be forced to participate in.

 

[Skylar]

Odd, I've asked you literally dozens of times how denying marriage to same sex parents helps their children. And you've never once had a rational answer.

Even now, you straight up refuse to answer the question.

Keep running, Sil.

Because there is no rational answer.

Of course there is, and Sil refused to answer, which is her answer.

Well, beats actually giving us the rational answer.

Thanks Jake!

Yep, her silent affirmation by refusing to answer is that children of gay parents are better off if their parents don't marry.

Soggy, do you believe like Sil?

I don't think it matters one way or another. The bigger issue is children growing up in same sex households. Marriage is of little consequence, at least in my book.

Which is a fundamental point. Same sex couples are already having children. If children are your focus the question isn't whether or not same sex couples should have kids. That's already been answered tens of thousands of times. But whether its better for the kids if their parents are married or if they're not allowed to be married.

And I think the evidence is clear that its better for their kids if same sex parents are allowed to marry.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The answer is obvious and the Court cited it repeatedly:

Denying marriage to same sex parents *doesn't* help their children, but hurts them severely. While recognizing marriage for same sex parents does help their children in a myriad of overlapping ways.

Mark my words, the jury is still out on these kids... I think a lot of therapy is in their future.

Yes, it was awfully nice of these "kid caring" 5 Justices to subject them to an experiment like lab rats; where we already know that depriving a child of either a mother or father for life, as a matter of contract, is an onerous term that society cannot allow children to be forced to participate in.

As a matter of fact, there is no "matter of contract" in this issue.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Because there is no rational answer.

Of course there is, and Sil refused to answer, which is her answer.

Well, beats actually giving us the rational answer.

Thanks Jake!

Yep, her silent affirmation by refusing to answer is that children of gay parents are better off if their parents don't marry.

Soggy, do you believe like Sil?

I don't think it matters one way or another. The bigger issue is children growing up in same sex households. Marriage is of little consequence, at least in my book.

Which is a fundamental point. Same sex couples are already having children. If children are your focus the question isn't whether or not same sex couples should have kids. That's already been answered tens of thousands of times. But whether its better for the kids if their parents are married or if they're not allowed to be married.

And I think the evidence is clear that its better for their kids if same sex parents are allowed to marry.

I don;t think the evidence is very clear at all.... it is too new a subject. hwoever, heterosexual unions are the norm and there are thousands and thousands of years of evidence. And yes, heterosexual parents can be shitty.

 

[Skylar]

The answer is obvious and the Court cited it repeatedly:

Denying marriage to same sex parents *doesn't* help their children, but hurts them severely. While recognizing marriage for same sex parents does help their children in a myriad of overlapping ways.

Mark my words, the jury is still out on these kids... I think a lot of therapy is in their future.

Yes, it was awfully nice of these "kid caring" 5 Justices to subject them to an experiment like lab rats; where we already know that depriving a child of either a mother or father for life, as a matter of contract, is an onerous term that society cannot allow children to be forced to participate in.

Please give us a ******* break, Jen. You raised your daughter as a single mother, 'depriving' her of a father. And yet you don't hold yourself to the same standards you hold same sex couples.

Worse for you, same sex couples are already having kids. So the question of whether or not same sex parents should have kids is already answered: of course.

The only question left, if kids are genuinely your priority in the matter, is whether the kids are better off with married parents or unmarried parents.

And the answer is obviously the former. Which is why you avoid my question like it were on fire.

 

[Skylar]

Of course there is, and Sil refused to answer, which is her answer.

Well, beats actually giving us the rational answer.

Thanks Jake!

Yep, her silent affirmation by refusing to answer is that children of gay parents are better off if their parents don't marry.

Soggy, do you believe like Sil?

I don't think it matters one way or another. The bigger issue is children growing up in same sex households. Marriage is of little consequence, at least in my book.

Which is a fundamental point. Same sex couples are already having children. If children are your focus the question isn't whether or not same sex couples should have kids. That's already been answered tens of thousands of times. But whether its better for the kids if their parents are married or if they're not allowed to be married.

And I think the evidence is clear that its better for their kids if same sex parents are allowed to marry.

I don;t think the evidence is very clear at all.... it is too new a subject. hwoever, heterosexual unions are the norm and there are thousands and thousands of years of evidence. And yes, heterosexual parents can be shitty.

You're speaking of the doubts of same sex parenting. And that's a separate issue from same sex marriage.....which in the context of children is a legal status for the relationship. Not the actual relationship.

How would children be benefited by say, not having certain survivor or medical benefits afforded through the marriage of their parents? Or by being stigmatized through not having married parents?

The legal benefits of having married parents are clear. The stability to home is clear. And same sex parenting isn't new. Only legal recognition of the marriage of those parents is new.

 

[Skylar]

The answer is obvious and the Court cited it repeatedly:

Denying marriage to same sex parents *doesn't* help their children, but hurts them severely. While recognizing marriage for same sex parents does help their children in a myriad of overlapping ways.

Mark my words, the jury is still out on these kids... I think a lot of therapy is in their future.

Yes, it was awfully nice of these "kid caring" 5 Justices to subject them to an experiment like lab rats; where we already know that depriving a child of either a mother or father for life, as a matter of contract, is an onerous term that society cannot allow children to be forced to participate in.

As a matter of fact, there is no "matter of contract" in this issue.

Nope. No child is a party to the marriage of their parents. Nor does any state recognize that a child is 'married' to their parents.

I'm genuinely curious though why Sil keeps repeating this same pseudo-legal nonsense when even she can't find any state or federal law that recognizes it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well, beats actually giving us the rational answer.

Thanks Jake!

Yep, her silent affirmation by refusing to answer is that children of gay parents are better off if their parents don't marry.

Soggy, do you believe like Sil?

I don't think it matters one way or another. The bigger issue is children growing up in same sex households. Marriage is of little consequence, at least in my book.

Which is a fundamental point. Same sex couples are already having children. If children are your focus the question isn't whether or not same sex couples should have kids. That's already been answered tens of thousands of times. But whether its better for the kids if their parents are married or if they're not allowed to be married.

And I think the evidence is clear that its better for their kids if same sex parents are allowed to marry.

I don;t think the evidence is very clear at all.... it is too new a subject. hwoever, heterosexual unions are the norm and there are thousands and thousands of years of evidence. And yes, heterosexual parents can be shitty.

You're speaking of the doubts of same sex parenting. And that's a separate issue from same sex marriage.....which in the context of children is a legal status for the relationship. Not the actual relationship.

How would children be benefited by say, not having certain survivor or medical benefits afforded through the marriage of their parents? Or by being stigmatized through not having married parents?

The legal benefits of having married parents are clear. The stability to home is clear. And same sex parenting isn't new. Only legal recognition of the marriage of those parents is new.

Honestly, yes, there are monetary rewards for sure.

 

[Skylar]

Yep, her silent affirmation by refusing to answer is that children of gay parents are better off if their parents don't marry.

Soggy, do you believe like Sil?

I don't think it matters one way or another. The bigger issue is children growing up in same sex households. Marriage is of little consequence, at least in my book.

Which is a fundamental point. Same sex couples are already having children. If children are your focus the question isn't whether or not same sex couples should have kids. That's already been answered tens of thousands of times. But whether its better for the kids if their parents are married or if they're not allowed to be married.

And I think the evidence is clear that its better for their kids if same sex parents are allowed to marry.

I don;t think the evidence is very clear at all.... it is too new a subject. hwoever, heterosexual unions are the norm and there are thousands and thousands of years of evidence. And yes, heterosexual parents can be shitty.

You're speaking of the doubts of same sex parenting. And that's a separate issue from same sex marriage.....which in the context of children is a legal status for the relationship. Not the actual relationship.

How would children be benefited by say, not having certain survivor or medical benefits afforded through the marriage of their parents? Or by being stigmatized through not having married parents?

The legal benefits of having married parents are clear. The stability to home is clear. And same sex parenting isn't new. Only legal recognition of the marriage of those parents is new.

Honestly, yes, there are monetary rewards for sure.

That's what I'm saying. I can see some debate on the benefits of same sex parenting. But its a separate issue from same sex marriage...which is simply legal recognition for a relationship. Not the actual relationship.

And the legal recognition carries some pretty obvious benefits.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is crying others are not answering her direct questions when she had in fact had to have the truth wrestled out of her via silent affirmation.

She hates children is the point.

 

[Skylar]

Sil is crying others are not answering her direct questions when she had in fact had to have the truth wrestled out of her via silent affirmation.

She hates children is the point.

I think its fairer to say that she hates gay people with an irrational hysteria. And is willing to sacrifice the welfare of any number of children to pursue her obsession with hurting gay folks.

 

[mdk]

Yes, it was awfully nice of these "kid caring" 5 Justices to subject them to an experiment like lab rats; where we already know that depriving a child of either a mother or father for life, as a matter of contract, is an onerous term that society cannot allow children to be forced to participate in.

Ending gay marriage in no way stops gay people from raising their children. Your solution doesn't address your problem. We both know your end game, but your too chicken shit to admit it.

 

[Silhouette]

Ending gay marriage in no way stops gay people from raising their children. Your solution doesn't address your problem. We both know your end game, but your too chicken shit to admit it.

Who says gay marriage will end if polygamists file a lawsuit? That's sort of jumping the gun, isn't it? What harm would be done by allowing polygamist-Americans to marry? The Court can weigh that against Obergefell. They will have to find that polygamists may marry. Either that or...oh...now I see why you said "Ending gay marriage"....

...actually it wouldn't end gay marriage in the states that ratified it. Time to either 1. Accept polygamy marriage nationwide or 2. Roll up your sleeves and convince each state to ratify "gay marriage". It wouldn't be the end of gay marriage; just the beginning of a lot of hard work. So, what is it, you guys just lazy or something?

 

[mdk]

Ending gay marriage in no way stops gay people from raising their children. Your solution doesn't address your problem. We both know your end game, but your too chicken shit to admit it.

Who says gay marriage will end if polygamists file a lawsuit? That's sort of jumping the gun, isn't it? What harm would be done by allowing polygamist-Americans to marry? The Court can weigh that against Obergefell. They will have to find that polygamists may marry. Either that or...oh...now I see why you said "Ending gay marriage"....

That's all you ever see. All your thought is bent on it. The problem for you is that most people have moved on from this issue. Your personal obsession isn't everyone else's obsession.

 

[mdk]

...actually it wouldn't end gay marriage in the states that ratified it. Time to either 1. Accept polygamy marriage nationwide or 2. Roll up your sleeves and convince each state to ratify "gay marriage". It wouldn't be the end of gay marriage; just the beginning of a lot of hard work. So, what is it, you guys just lazy or something

Or gay people can do nothing and continue to marry in every state despite your whining. You've lost this issue, along with whatever marbles you had left. Too bad, so sad.

 

[Skylar]

Ending gay marriage in no way stops gay people from raising their children. Your solution doesn't address your problem. We both know your end game, but your too chicken shit to admit it.

Who says gay marriage will end if polygamists file a lawsuit?

Wow. Word salad. He never so much as mentioned polygamy.

This is getting embarrasing to watch.

That's sort of jumping the gun, isn't it? What harm would be done by allowing polygamist-Americans to marry? The Court can weigh that against Obergefell. They will have to find that polygamists may marry. Either that or...oh...now I see why you said "Ending gay marriage"....

Laughing....you do realize that your record of predicting legal outcomes is one of perfect failure, right? You've literally never been right.....ever.

Making your latest insistence on 'what the court will have to do' just adorable. Your pseudo-legal gibberish has nothing to do with any case, nor impacts any ruling.

Remember....you make shit up. Its irrelevant to the law. Nothing happens.

...actually it wouldn't end gay marriage in the states that ratified it. Time to either 1. Accept polygamy marriage nationwide or 2. Roll up your sleeves and convince each state to ratify "gay marriage". It wouldn't be the end of gay marriage; just the beginning of a lot of hard work. So, what is it, you guys just lazy or something?

Why would we want to put the rights of people to a vote?

Again, you lost. Exactly as we told you you would. We're not having a do-over because you didn't like the outcome.

 

[Silhouette]

Why would we want to put the rights of people to a vote?
.

That's exactly what Turley or another sharp attorney will argue before the courts when ANY sexual orientation is turned away for a marriage license.

 

[Silhouette]

That's all you ever see. All your thought is bent on it. The problem for you is that most people have moved on from this issue. Your personal obsession isn't everyone else's obsession.

Well see that's the thing. When polygamist-Americans seek their day in court and that case pending makes the news, suddenly folks lulled to sleep on the issue will wake up..in numbers that might even alarm you mdk..

 

[Silhouette]

...actually it wouldn't end gay marriage in the states that ratified it. Time to either 1. Accept polygamy marriage nationwide or 2. Roll up your sleeves and convince each state to ratify "gay marriage". It wouldn't be the end of gay marriage; just the beginning of a lot of hard work. So, what is it, you guys just lazy or something

Or gay people can do nothing and continue to marry in every state despite your whining. You've lost this issue, along with whatever marbles you had left. Too bad, so sad.

Holding your head in the sand won't roll back the rights of polygamist-Americans to have their orientation be legal to marry as well. You want 'gays to keep marrying' while they can't? Are you a bigot? What about the harm being done to their children?

Bear in mind, I'm just throwing the LGBT cult's talking points right back at you. And so doing, exposing their hypocrisy. Thanks for being such a willing player.

 

[mdk]

...actually it wouldn't end gay marriage in the states that ratified it. Time to either 1. Accept polygamy marriage nationwide or 2. Roll up your sleeves and convince each state to ratify "gay marriage". It wouldn't be the end of gay marriage; just the beginning of a lot of hard work. So, what is it, you guys just lazy or something

Or gay people can do nothing and continue to marry in every state despite your whining. You've lost this issue, along with whatever marbles you had left. Too bad, so sad.

Holding your head in the sand won't roll back the rights of polygamist-Americans to have their orientation be legal to marry as well. You want 'gays to keep marrying' while they can't? Are you a bigot? What about the harm being done to their children?

Bear in mind, I'm just throwing the LGBT cult's talking points right back at you. And so doing, exposing their hypocrisy. Thanks for being such a willing player.

You talking about anyone burying their head in the sand is comically ironic. See: Ferber, Hively, Obergefell, The Prince's Trust, Dylan Roof, Chris Mercer, your 90% poll, and, any other thing that doesn't jibe with your rabidly anti-gay narrative.

The only person you are fooling when you claim to care about children is yourself.