Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

[mdk]

If you people care so much about children having a mother and a father, turn off your damned computer, go get married, and adopt up all of the parentless children so the gays can't get them.

You don't give the slightest shit about it. You are just using this as a justification for your prejudice. If you believed that every child deserves a mother and a father, you would find a spouse make it work and adopt a couple of children. You don't give a shit. Don't act like you do.

Well let's just say for argument's sake that you're right, (but you're not), it appears as if 90% of all the other folks who responded to the poll in this thread do give a shit about whether a child has both a mother and father in their life growing up. So the chances that I actually do give a shit are excellent. I would have to be the rare exception if I didn't give shit about that...

How exactly does stopping gays from marrying prohibit them from raising children? Oh, wait...it doesn't.

You only care about kids to find a way to smear gay people. You disregard them when you can't and claim hope is substitute for a missing parent. Either way, you are woefully irrelevant to gay families.

 

[Silhouette]

How exactly does stopping gays from marrying prohibit them from raising children? Oh, wait...it doesn't.

You only care about kids to find a way to smear gay people. You disregard them when you can't and claim hope is substitute for a missing parent. Either way, you are woefully irrelevant to gay families.

Since marriage was created to cure the ills of children not having both a mother and father, your question is irrelevant to the topic.

Of note is "gay marriage" binds children away from both a mother and father as a contractual term, for life. Whereas all the other inferior situations to marriage as far as kids are concerned can be remedied in their best interest. That remedy is shut off by a legally binding term of contract in "gay marriage"... Which simultaneously is not allowed in contract law where infants are involved..

 

[Skylar]

How exactly does stopping gays from marrying prohibit them from raising children? Oh, wait...it doesn't.

You only care about kids to find a way to smear gay people. You disregard them when you can't and claim hope is substitute for a missing parent. Either way, you are woefully irrelevant to gay families.

Since marriage was created to cure the ills of children not having both a mother and father, your question is irrelevant to the topic.

Since marriage wasn't created to 'cure the ill of children not having both a mother and father' your post is irrelevant to the topic.

You know full well that denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children. But hurts them. Nor does denying same sex parents marriage help any child.

And that's why you avoid the question that MDK asked you like it was on fire.

Of note is "gay marriage" binds children away from both a mother and father as a contractual term, for life. Whereas all the other inferior situations to marriage as far as kids are concerned can be remedied in their best interest. That remedy is shut off by a legally binding term of contract in "gay marriage"... Which simultaneously is not allowed in contract law where infants are involved..

Marriage doesn't establish the gender of your parents. Nor is it necessary to have children. As the hundreds of thousands of same sex parents before the Obergefell ruling demonstrate.

Nor does denying marriage to same sex parents magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that that their children will never have married parents. Which hurts children by hundreds of thousands. And helps no child.

All of which you know. Why then would we ever inflict the harm you insist we inflict on children? What's the benefit?

The answer is simple: there is none. And you know that too.

 

[mdk]

How exactly does stopping gays from marrying prohibit them from raising children? Oh, wait...it doesn't.

You only care about kids to find a way to smear gay people. You disregard them when you can't and claim hope is substitute for a missing parent. Either way, you are woefully irrelevant to gay families.

Since marriage was created to cure the ills of children not having both a mother and father, your question is irrelevant to the topic.

Of note is "gay marriage" binds children away from both a mother and father as a contractual term, for life. Whereas all the other inferior situations to marriage as far as kids are concerned can be remedied in their best interest. That remedy is shut off by a legally binding term of contract in "gay marriage"... Which simultaneously is not allowed in contract law where infants are involved..

And by irrelevant you mean inconvenient. lol No, marriage wasn't created to cure the ills of children not having a mother and father. Those are idiotic lies you tell yourself to further your rabidly anti-gay narrative.

The rest of your post is the same debunked bullshit you spam daily.

Poor little irrelevant, Mentally Sil.

 

[Silhouette]

No, marriage was about curing the ills of fatherless or motherless children. There is so much documented history on this that ...well...good luck in court. Besides...you know how the Justices feel about ruling on the propensity of public opinion. Clearly 90% of the public feels a child having both a mother and father is important. Gay marriage deprives children via contract of either a mother or father for life. Nobody but NOBODY will say this is an acceptable condition that is "good for" children. Depriving a child of a necessity via a contractual bond is forbidden by law.

 

[EverCurious]

If anything, I'd say marriage was created to consolidate and retain power and wealth for a male leader. While the formation of a bonding relationship of "family" has always existed and been recognized by "outsiders" in some manner or another, the "official" act of "legal" style marriage itself appears to have come out of Mesopotamia around 2300BC as a contract of a male leaders ownership. This might not be PC and I mean no disrespect, but I've always found it interesting that what amounts to a slave contract evolved where it did and was adopted by everyone. It's always hammered home just how prevalent slavery was in ancient times, and I'm afraid, just how unimportant the supposed "sanctity" of marriage really was in it's inception.

This original concept of marriage as invented [by the Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans as far as we have studied evidence thus far] was nothing more than the equivalent to a deed on a house or the title to a car - and just as with property today, there were no restrictions upon how many wives one had, and as it evolved there were no restrictions upon how many [nor what sex] lovers a married [man] could have [and in Roman society wealthy married women were allowed lovers], nor were there ever really restrictions upon ridding oneself of a wife [or husband, later in history.] Marriage's evolution has components of reproduction, in that the children of the wife became property of the man - very similarly to how puppies become property of the human owner, rather than the mother dog - mothers did not own their children once marriage evolved, instead the husband did, and marriage also made it possible for him to rid himself of the mother at any time, while still retaining ownership of the child(ren) - thus enabling him to effectively pass on his aquired property and wealth to a "chosen" child [usually a son because women were little more "important" than horses back then - though the perceived importance of women did increase from that point fairly quickly, it still took thousands and thousands of years for women to have a measureable "status" with any more "power" than, for example, a dog show champion would command.]

Religion didn't actually get ahold of "marriage" until 1563, when the Catholic church determined /they/ would have control over said property right conveyance [nearly 4000 years after the invention of "marriage"] - an act which enabled the church to dictate which family lines would be allowed to consolidate power. By bringing in marriage as an official canon, and restricting its validation and legality to only /their/ priests, they effectively severed property rights of non-believers enabling them to take possession upon death, with the added benefit of forcing the people to covert to their religion in order to pass down their property to their kids. An immensely effective plan with little to no war required, so long as they controlled the king. Absolutely brilliant.

 

[Syriusly]

No, marriage was about curing the ills of fatherless or motherless children. There is so much documented history on this that ...well...good luck in court. Besides...you know how the Justices feel about ruling on the propensity of public opinion. Clearly 90% of the public feels a child having both a mother and father is important. Gay marriage deprives children via contract of either a mother or father for life. Nobody but NOBODY will say this is an acceptable condition that is "good for" children. Depriving a child of a necessity via a contractual bond is forbidden by law.

Are you in favor of incestuous marriage?

 

[mdk]

No, marriage was about curing the ills of fatherless or motherless children. There is so much documented history on this that ...well...good luck in court. Besides...you know how the Justices feel about ruling on the propensity of public opinion. Clearly 90% of the public feels a child having both a mother and father is important. Gay marriage deprives children via contract of either a mother or father for life. Nobody but NOBODY will say this is an acceptable condition that is "good for" children. Depriving a child of a necessity via a contractual bond is forbidden by law.

Luck isn't needed. The Surpeme Court just ruled 8-zip forcing Alabama to recognize same-sex adoptions performed in other states. No where in their ruling did they mention children being an implicit part of a marriage contract. All your whiny bullshit doesn't change reality. You lose...again.

 

[Syriusly]

There is so much documented history on this that ..

so much....that you never produce any.......

 

[Skylar]

No, marriage was about curing the ills of fatherless or motherless children.

Nope.

There is so much documented history on this that ...well...good luck in court.

You're not citing 'documented history'. You're citing yourself. And like your pseudo-legal gibberish regarding 'contract law', you have no idea what you're talking about.

Besides...you know how the Justices feel about ruling on the propensity of public opinion. Clearly 90% of the public feels a child having both a mother and father is important. Gay marriage deprives children via contract of either a mother or father for life. Nobody but NOBODY will say this is an acceptable condition that is "good for" children. Depriving a child of a necessity via a contractual bond is forbidden by law.

Oh, support for same sex marriage is overwhelming. Its approaching 2 to 1 in favor.

Hitting an all time high last year.

Be it legal consensus of public opinion.....you're only lying to yourself, Sil.

 

[Inevitable]

Well let's just say for argument's sake that you're right, (but you're not), it appears as if 90% of all the other folks who responded to the poll in this thread do give a shit about whether a child has both a mother and father in their life growing up.

Just saying that doesn't make it so. And actions speak louder than words. Do how many of these posters that apparently care so much have adopted children that had neither parent?

You don't care, at least not enough to make a difference.

All I hear is hot air.

So the chances that I actually do give a shit are excellent.

Action speaks louder than words darling.

I would have to be the rare exception if I didn't give shit about that...

Hot air.

 

[Inevitable]

Given that your 'solution' is to deny marriage to same sex parents and denying marriage to same sex parents does nothing to remedy the 'problem' you've cited, chances are excellent that you don't give a shit about kids.

She'd prefer these kids just rot in foster care. That's such a wonderful thing.

 

[Silhouette]

Given that your 'solution' is to deny marriage to same sex parents and denying marriage to same sex parents does nothing to remedy the 'problem' you've cited, chances are excellent that you don't give a shit about kids.

She'd prefer these kids just rot in foster care. That's such a wonderful thing.

Gotta get to those vulnerable kids! Gotta create a legal loophole to get at them by denying all children involved their contractual enjoyments in marriage to both a mother and father...for life..!

"Foster kids"...I can just see the drool forming on pedophiles' chins.. You know, when you go around celebrating "twinks" as a culture and celebrating a man like Harvey Milk who preyed on "Foster kids"...well, OK, he preferred them homeless on the streets on drugs...but you get the idea: no intent guardians to really safeguard them.. I'm sure you'd be advocating "gay marriage" as a vehicle to get them home legally and kept so you don't have to go to jail.

Not saying all gays. But just identifying yourself by a deviant sexual behavior as a proud identity is screaming red flags right and left so.. Would I adopt to you a foster child if I just saw you wigging your ass dry humping on a float in a pride parade...oogling at young bodies (like is commonly seen at pride parades)? No, I wouldn't. You belong to a cult of rampant and bridleless sexual promiscuity and "exploration", you don't get to adopt your coveted "Foster kids"..

I'd still like to see a survey done of the gender of children gay men, for example, are asking to adopt (since they can't manufacture children into their lives as easily as lesbians). But we don't really have to see that survey to guess do we? I'd put my money running at around 90%+ of gay men if given the choice would want to take home little boys every time...maybe about 5 years apart in age....one after the other. That's how Harvey Milk did it, tossing one twink aside for a younger one about 5 years younger than the trash he just used and threw out the door.. Two or three of his boy toys...his foster boys..killed themselves after the "Milk treatment"..

I want you to notice the body language of this little boy adopted by the two men in the picture. I used to study primates with a family member when she was getting her master's degree in anthropology. We'd watch them for a long while and observed their body language. The boy in the photo below has his hands curled and turned inward up against his chest in a protective gesture. It is clear he is not extending his hands in love or trust to either of the men flanking him. He is doing the exact opposite of that. And looking behind his sunglasses, you can just make out the whites of his eyes that are widened, suggesting fear.

The man atop the boy has his chin clamped down over his head and a look almost of insidious cruelty in the glint of his eyes and smile. His partner sports a flinty look of assent and a cheshire cat smile. I read an article on these guys and it was reported they went back over and again to the adoption agency wanting "just the right child". When they got this boy they rejoiced calling him "beautiful". So, you decide. (not sure if that's chocolate or a cold sore on the side of the boy's mouth)..

 

[mdk]

Given that your 'solution' is to deny marriage to same sex parents and denying marriage to same sex parents does nothing to remedy the 'problem' you've cited, chances are excellent that you don't give a shit about kids.

She'd prefer these kids just rot in foster care. That's such a wonderful thing.

Gotta get to those vulnerable kids! Gotta create a legal loophole to get at them by denying all children involved their contractual enjoyments in marriage to both a mother and father! "Foster kids"...I can just see the drool forming on your chin..

Wouldn't children have to first be party to marriage contact before a legal loophole was created? Seeing as not a single state recognizes children as such it appears you are shit of luck.

 

[Skylar]

Given that your 'solution' is to deny marriage to same sex parents and denying marriage to same sex parents does nothing to remedy the 'problem' you've cited, chances are excellent that you don't give a shit about kids.

She'd prefer these kids just rot in foster care. That's such a wonderful thing.

Gotta get to those vulnerable kids! Gotta create a legal loophole to get at them by denying all children involved their contractual enjoyments in marriage to both a mother and father...for life..!

Save of course that children aren't parties to the marriage of their children. You keep forgetting this part. ....as if by ignoring it the law magically changes.

Um, Sil....that's not how reality works. The law doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes. And while your eyes are closed it doesn't matter what you imagine inside your head.

Nothing changes out here.

"Foster kids"...I can just see the drool forming on pedophiles' chins.. You know, when you go around celebrating "twinks" as a culture and celebrating a man like Harvey Milk who preyed on "Foster kids"...well, OK, he preferred them homeless on the streets on drugs...but you get the idea: no intent guardians to really safeguard them.. I'm sure you'd be advocating "gay marriage" as a vehicle to get them home legally and kept so you don't have to go to jail.

Not saying all gays. But just identifying yourself by a deviant sexual behavior as a proud identity is screaming red flags right and left so.. Would I adopt to you a foster child if I just saw you wigging your ass dry humping on a float in a pride parade...oogling at young bodies (like is commonly seen at pride parades)? No, I wouldn't. You belong to a cult of rampant and bridleless sexual promiscuity and "exploration", you don't get to adopt your coveted "Foster kids"..

So a gay guy shakes his ass on a float....and that means that *some other* gay guy hundreds of miles away wouldn't be a good foster parent? WTF?

Can we apply the same logic to some girl at spring break.....and you? Shes female. You're female. She shook her ass. So you can't be a good foster parent, right?

If not, why not?

 

[Skylar]

Given that your 'solution' is to deny marriage to same sex parents and denying marriage to same sex parents does nothing to remedy the 'problem' you've cited, chances are excellent that you don't give a shit about kids.

She'd prefer these kids just rot in foster care. That's such a wonderful thing.

Gotta get to those vulnerable kids! Gotta create a legal loophole to get at them by denying all children involved their contractual enjoyments in marriage to both a mother and father! "Foster kids"...I can just see the drool forming on your chin..

Wouldn't children have to first be party to marriage contact before a legal loophole was created? Seeing as not a single state recognizes children as such it appears you are shit of luck.

Trivial detail. Hardly worth mentioning.

 

[Inevitable]

Gotta get to those vulnerable kids! Gotta create a legal loophole to get at them by denying all children involved their contractual enjoyments in marriage to both a mother and father...for life..!

Ideal parents are ones that put their child first, not ones that have crotches that match up. Further children aren't party to the contract of marriage. The heterosexuals ate the ones that deny children such things anyway.

"Foster kids"...I can just see the drool forming on pedophiles' chins..

You'd prefer them being in that situation instead of with living parents or parent.

You know, when you go around celebrating "twinks" as a culture and celebrating a man like Harvey Milk who preyed on "Foster kids"...well, OK, he preferred them homeless on the streets on drugs...but you get the idea: no intent guardians to really safeguard them.. I'm sure you'd be advocating "gay marriage" as a vehicle to get them home legally and kept so you don't have to go to jail.

I don't recall celebrating Harvey milk. In fact I had never heard of the guy until people like you who apparently celebrate him far more than I do, exposed your love affair with the guy.

Further sexually amusing kids is wrong and that isn't the goal for anybody but pedophiles. Oddly enough heterosexuals make up 97% if pedophiles.

Not saying all gays. But just identifying yourself by a deviant sexual behavior as a proud identity is screaming red flags right and left so.

You are the one that is identifying people in such a manner. Being gay means having romantic relationships with people of the same sex. It implies nothing deviant.

Would I adopt to you a foster child if I just saw you wigging your ass dry humping on a float in a pride parade...oogling at young bodies (like is commonly seen at pride parades)? No, I wouldn't.

Of course, you'd rather foster them out to pedophiles and various other child abusers.

You belong to a cult of rampant and bridleless sexual promiscuity and "exploration", you don't get to adopt your coveted "Foster kids"..

No, I gave up sex cults when I left organized religion. Further anybody that proves they are financially capable and capable of providing a safe environment for a child can adopt one. And they aren't of any value to you. You'd rather see them put with pedophiles.

i'd still like to see a survey done of the gender of children gay men, for example, are asking to adopt (since they can't manufacture children into their lives as easily as lesbians). But we don't really have to see that survey to guess do we? I'd put my money running at around 90%+ of gay men if given the choice would want to take home little boys every time...maybe about 5 years apart in age....one after the other.

What a pile of garbage.

That's how Harvey Milk did it, tossing one twink aside for a younger one about 5 years younger than the trash he just used and threw out the door.. Two or three of his boy toys...his foster boys..killed themselves after the "Milk treatment"..

Here you go talking about your boyfriend again. When heterosexuals want to molest children they just coach a football team or become a pastor.

I want you to notice the body language of this little boy adopted by the two men in the picture. I used to study primates with a family member when she was getting her master's degree in anthropology. We'd watch them for a long while and observed their body language. The boy in the photo below has his hands curled and turned inward up against his chest in a protective gesture. It is clear he is not extending his hands in love or trust to either of the men flanking him. He is doing the exact opposite of that. And looking behind his sunglasses, you can just make out the whites of his eyes that are widened, suggesting fear.

The man atop the boy has his chin clamped down over his head and a look almost of insidious cruelty in the glint of his eyes and smile. His partner sports a flinty look of assent and a cheshire cat smile. I read an article on these guys and it was reported they went back over and again to the adoption agency wanting "just the right child". When they got this boy they rejoiced calling him "beautiful". So, you decide. (not sure if that's chocolate or a cold sore on the side of the boy's mouth)..

You are what is known as a bigot. You think every gay man is a child molester just because your boyfriend (milk) was allegedly.

I don't really care about your amateur Anthropologie, because you want to see what you see. You have developed x-ray vision to feed your obsession.

I'm starting to wonder if your husband or boyfriend left you for a man.

 

[Inevitable]

Given that your 'solution' is to deny marriage to same sex parents and denying marriage to same sex parents does nothing to remedy the 'problem' you've cited, chances are excellent that you don't give a shit about kids.

She'd prefer these kids just rot in foster care. That's such a wonderful thing.

Gotta get to those vulnerable kids! Gotta create a legal loophole to get at them by denying all children involved their contractual enjoyments in marriage to both a mother and father...for life..!

Save of course that children aren't parties to the marriage of their children. You keep forgetting this part. ....as if by ignoring it the law magically changes.

Um, Sil....that's not how reality works. The law doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes. And while your eyes are closed it doesn't matter what you imagine inside your head.

Nothing changes out here.

"Foster kids"...I can just see the drool forming on pedophiles' chins.. You know, when you go around celebrating "twinks" as a culture and celebrating a man like Harvey Milk who preyed on "Foster kids"...well, OK, he preferred them homeless on the streets on drugs...but you get the idea: no intent guardians to really safeguard them.. I'm sure you'd be advocating "gay marriage" as a vehicle to get them home legally and kept so you don't have to go to jail.

Not saying all gays. But just identifying yourself by a deviant sexual behavior as a proud identity is screaming red flags right and left so.. Would I adopt to you a foster child if I just saw you wigging your ass dry humping on a float in a pride parade...oogling at young bodies (like is commonly seen at pride parades)? No, I wouldn't. You belong to a cult of rampant and bridleless sexual promiscuity and "exploration", you don't get to adopt your coveted "Foster kids"..

So a gay guy shakes his ass on a float....and that means that *some other* gay guy hundreds of miles away wouldn't be a good foster parent? WTF?

Can we apply the same logic to some girl at spring break.....and you? Shes female. You're female. She shook her ass. So you can't be a good foster parent, right?

If not, why not?

Yes, because in the puny mind of a bigot she assumes all gay men are pedophiles.

There has to be an emotional reason for her to view ask gay men with such contempt. I'm thinking she was cheated on by her lover with another man. Or she is angry that gay men get and keep men while she doesn't.

 

[Inevitable]

Given that your 'solution' is to deny marriage to same sex parents and denying marriage to same sex parents does nothing to remedy the 'problem' you've cited, chances are excellent that you don't give a shit about kids.

She'd prefer these kids just rot in foster care. That's such a wonderful thing.

Gotta get to those vulnerable kids! Gotta create a legal loophole to get at them by denying all children involved their contractual enjoyments in marriage to both a mother and father! "Foster kids"...I can just see the drool forming on your chin..

Wouldn't children have to first be party to marriage contact before a legal loophole was created? Seeing as not a single state recognizes children as such it appears you are shit of luck.

Mental gymnastics are always required when trying to pass camels through needle eyes.

I think she's better off playing leap frog with unicorns.

 

[Silhouette]

It's not mental gymnastics...