New Civil Rights Movement: Children-Americans.

[Syriusly]

[
The problem with the Left is that in the absence of God whom you have ousted, selfishness reigns, !

The problem with you is that you like to overgeneralize and attack people based upon your imagination.

I happen to be an atheist, and a happily married husband of over 20 years, a very proud dad, an officer in the PTA- and yes a liberal.

My days are spent working to provide for my family, and spending time with my family, and volunteering in organizations that relate to my family.

So tell me again how I am being selfish because I don't believe in your fairy tales?

 

[Syriusly]

Solution one: bring another "dad" into the mix. This solves nothing because it's only more of the same. One dad, two dads, ten dads can't replace the unique influence of a mother.

Solution two: have female influences for the child. Many parents make this mistake, thinking that a missing parent can be replaced by a close aquaintance of that gender. But motherhood is not just feminine, it's maternal, relational. Outsiders cannot immitate this.

A child is going to be better off with two dads, than a single dad- all other things being equal.

But thanks for telling Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America that they are wasting their time.

 

[Syriusly]

Why do you want to hurt the children of polygamy and incest?

You just can't answer the question can you?

Why do you want to hurt the children of gay couples?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Why do you want to hurt the children of polygamy and incest?

You just can't answer the question can you?

Why do you want to hurt the children of gay couples?

They're already being hurt. This is the point.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Solution one: bring another "dad" into the mix. This solves nothing because it's only more of the same. One dad, two dads, ten dads can't replace the unique influence of a mother.

Solution two: have female influences for the child. Many parents make this mistake, thinking that a missing parent can be replaced by a close aquaintance of that gender. But motherhood is not just feminine, it's maternal, relational. Outsiders cannot immitate this.

A child is going to be better off with two dads, than a single dad- all other things being equal.

But thanks for telling Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America that they are wasting their time.

That was stupid. BBA isn't designed to replace a father nor do they claim to. And I'm not talking about same sex mentors for children, I'm talking about a mother AND a father needed by both girls AND boys. There isn't even a remote parallel to the idiocy you just spouted.

Your posts are really dumbed down. Can you up your game please or is that really the best you can do?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

[
The problem with the Left is that in the absence of God whom you have ousted, selfishness reigns, !

The problem with you is that you like to overgeneralize and attack people based upon your imagination.

I happen to be an atheist, and a happily married husband of over 20 years, a very proud dad, an officer in the PTA- and yes a liberal.

My days are spent working to provide for my family, and spending time with my family, and volunteering in organizations that relate to my family.

So tell me again how I am being selfish because I don't believe in your fairy tales?

You're doing everything right. Why do you feel attacked by my post? As long as your kids have a mother AND a father, you're not the selfish beings I'm talking about. And you know that.

But tell me, oh moral-without-God one, why are you willing to inflict cruelty upon other children you're not willing to inflict upon your own?

 

[Syriusly]

[
The problem with the Left is that in the absence of God whom you have ousted, selfishness reigns, !

The problem with you is that you like to overgeneralize and attack people based upon your imagination.

I happen to be an atheist, and a happily married husband of over 20 years, a very proud dad, an officer in the PTA- and yes a liberal.

My days are spent working to provide for my family, and spending time with my family, and volunteering in organizations that relate to my family.

So tell me again how I am being selfish because I don't believe in your fairy tales?

You're doing everything right. Why do you feel attacked by my post?

Quoting you again- as you attacked 'the Left'- which includes me:

The problem with the Left is that in the absence of God whom you have ousted, selfishness reigns, !


The problem with you is that you like to overgeneralize and attack people based upon your imagination.

I happen to be an atheist, and a happily married husband of over 20 years, a very proud dad, an officer in the PTA- and yes a liberal.

My days are spent working to provide for my family, and spending time with my family, and volunteering in organizations that relate to my family.

So tell me again how I am being selfish because I don't believe in your fairy tales?

 

[Syriusly]

Solution one: bring another "dad" into the mix. This solves nothing because it's only more of the same. One dad, two dads, ten dads can't replace the unique influence of a mother.

Solution two: have female influences for the child. Many parents make this mistake, thinking that a missing parent can be replaced by a close aquaintance of that gender. But motherhood is not just feminine, it's maternal, relational. Outsiders cannot immitate this.

A child is going to be better off with two dads, than a single dad- all other things being equal.

But thanks for telling Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America that they are wasting their time.

That was stupid. BBA isn't designed to replace a father nor do they claim to. And I'm not talking about same sex mentors for children, I'm talking about a mother AND a father needed by both girls AND boys. There isn't even a remote parallel to the idiocy you just spouted.

Your posts are really dumbed down. Can you up your game please or is that really the best you can do?

Yeah that was rather off the cuff on my part- agreed- not applicable.

 

[Syriusly]

Why do you want to hurt the children of polygamy and incest?

You just can't answer the question can you?

Why do you want to hurt the children of gay couples?

They're already being hurt. This is the point.

Are they? You say that they are, but the evidence doesn't support you.

More importantly- you are purposely ignoring the point- and by doing so support Silhouette's bigoted agenda.

Silhouette wants to end gay marriage. Silhouette claims as a reason to help children. But as I have pointed out again and again- not a single child would be helped by Silhouette's proposal- not a single child would gain a parent, or an opposite gender parent.

But thousands of children would be harmed by Silhouette's proposal.

Whether you are right- or the studies are right- whether children are harmed- or not harmed by being raised by two parents of the same gender- preventing them from marrying inflicts harm- either additional harm- or just harm.

Why would you support that?

 

[Silhouette]

Because "anything goes" marriage hurts children with gays.

 

[Silhouette]

Why do you want to hurt the children of polygamy and incest?

You just can't answer the question can you?

Why do you want to hurt the children of gay couples?

The question of setting parameters for marriage is about helping children get a mother and father in a house for them.

Gays just don't cut the muster. So the more appropriate question, more acutely fine-tuned is "why do gays want to hurt children?"

Now I'll wait for your answer.

My take is that the USSC in private quarters deduced that "well you can't cure people from this mental addiction, so the kids caught up in their lifestyle should at least get the benefits of marriage; even if it means that we've just created a legal bind rewarding adults for legally divorcing a child for life from either a mother or father."

In short, the USSC forgot that marriage was about setting a gold standard. They took a gold-standard and rendered it into "anything goes"...without the permission from the 50 states...damaging legal protection for children's civil rights (their collective need for both a mother and father in marriage) AND our Constitutional protections against an imbalanced government. States have the right to set conditions.. which the USSC had JUST SAID in 2013 (Windsor) that was ONLY states' rights to change the parameters of the gold standard. Indeed, that's how Windsor got her money...from that very deduction that the fed had no right to set standards for marriage onerous to the states!!

Stay tuned for polygamy and incest marriage; because it cannot be denied under "anything goes"...

 

[Syriusly]

Because "anything goes" marriage hurts children with gays.

What is 'anything goes' marriage?

Remember- you haven't made a single proposal that would help a single child.

You have only made proposals that would harm children.

So why do you want to harm children?

 

[Syriusly]

Why do you want to hurt the children of polygamy and incest?

You just can't answer the question can you?

Why do you want to hurt the children of gay couples?

The question of setting parameters for marriage is about helping children get a mother and father in a house for them.

Gays just don't cut the muster. So the more appropriate question, more acutely fine-tuned is "why do gays want to hurt children?".

Well we know that two gay parents raising children together are better for the children than a single parent raising a child together- all other things being equal.

Assuming there was a harm- then that harm would happen every time a couple with children decided to divorce- and if there was such as harm to children- then the courts would justifiable prevent divorce.

But of course that doesn't happen. Our society doesn't predicate marriage on children- nor do we restrict marriage because of children.

Now back to your desire to harm gays and their children- remember- not a single proposal you have made would help a single child.

But your proposals would harm children.

So why do you want to harm children?

 

[Silhouette]

Because "anything goes" marriage hurts children with gays.

What is 'anything goes' marriage?

A definition of marriage that completely implodes the original purpose it was created: to provide in a home both mother and father for a child. A boy needs a father; a girl needs a mother. A boy needs a mother. A girl needs a father. Anything goes eliminates the provision that satisfies that need; and it does so via contract; binding for life.

Children have civil rights too. And part of those rights include states ability to act on their behalf to entice the best marriage for their benefit possible.

Well we know that two gay parents raising children together are better for the children than a single parent raising a child together- all other things being equal.

That's just the thing...they aren't equal. Missing a father or mother for life isn't "equal". It's MISSING half it's constitutional makeup. And, we actually know that isn't better than children of single parents because at least they're on the hunt for the missing element: imparting to the kids involved "your gender is important to me so much that I'm dating trying to fill that void". With "gay marriage" the daily message is "your gender doesn't matter in an adult functioning world, ever...we've completely written your gender off as mattering".

 

[flacaltenn]

Why were the two pages of replies removed from this thread? And one of the votes in the poll?

And part of my OP removed? And this link removed also? http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=lawreview for people to read about the Infancy Doctrine?

And they removed the part that said "THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT ABORTION".

The part of the OP that was missing was my stating that children have a civil rights issue when it comes to having both a mother and father of contract binding for life in marriage. That states had the right to decide that.

Syriusly responded saying "don't you care about the children of gays?" And I replied that she should also care about the children of polygamists and incest because they are currently being discriminated against by states (still allowed). And, that the Supreme Court will have to make a difficult choice in the very near future: to force all 50 states, yet again, to ratify a behavior construct (not a race) to the marriage contract that is onerous to children, or to allow states to discriminate against certain behaviors marrying, but not others.

I also compared gays stripping children of either a mother or father for life as a matter of binding contract as akin to what they did to little black kids on cotton plantations back in the 17 & 1800s.

NO -- ZERO -- NADA "moderator actions have been logged against this thread" Nothing in the record. Get you're act together and REPOST.. Without the whining about "moderator actions. Closed...