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

[Syriusly]

Well do you think it's possible to at the same time find it "important" of an ideal for children to have regular mother/father contact and at the same time support gay marriage which denies that to children involved in the preponderance (almost universally) of cases...by contract...for life..?

I think it's important for children to have parents not state-sponsored orphanages.

200,000+ years of Homo Sapien evolution has shown that there are reasons why men and women are different on the inside as well as the outside. That said, loving parents who are a gay/lesbian couple are much more preferable to an orphanage or being bounced around foster homes, which all to often are using children to pay their mortgage.

Silhouette and all of the rest of the anti-gay marriage folks don't want to deal with that- for many reasons.

First and foremost- kids are just a smoke screen for them- a flimsy rationalization that they paper their opposition to gay marriage with. They are against gay marriage regardless of whether kids are involved or not- they just use kids as a tool to attack gay marriage.

Secondly- as I keep pointing out- and that they absolutely shy away from- denying marriage to gays just doesn't help anyone- it only hurts people.

Most of the gay couples who marry don't have children- it is a non-issue. Just as it is for a large portion of hetero couples who marry- including my 80 year old uncle who married last year.

For the couples who do have children- or plan on having children- denying the couples marriage doesn't miraculously provide straight parents to the kids. It only means those kids don't have married parents- which harms the kids.

I can never get a straight answer from these folks- they won't come right out and say that what they really want is for government to take these kids away from their parents- or maybe make it illegal for gays to procreate- but only actions like that would achieve what they say that they want- which is to not have any children being raised by gay parents.

Finally we come to adoption- here are the rough numbers:
100,000 children a year eligible and waiting for adoption- virtually all abandoned by their biological parents that Silhouette and her fellow travellers insist are better parents than gays are.
33,000 wait 5 years or more to be adopted.
23,000 foster kids age out of the system each year with no family to provide financial or emotional support.

Silhouette and the others don't want gays to adopt any of these kids. They prefer the kids stay in foster care, and age out of the system rather than be adopted by a person or couple that want to make a life time commitment to be these kids family.

Children should have loving parents, but as you pointed out, there are several who are against such things for various reasons.

And we have no requirement that children have loving parents. Hell we no have requirements on becoming parents at all- any fertile man and woman can get drunk at a bar one night and end up pregnant- and they are legally presumed to be competent parents until proven otherwise.

Only when it comes to gay parents do these people demand different expectations.

There is no law against being a parent, but there are laws on adoption.

Yeah- it is really a weird conundrum- an two fools can have a baby and be presumed to be competent parents.

But if you want to adopt a child abandoned by those two fools, you need to prove to the government that you are capable and willing to be a good parent. For the protection of the children awaiting adoption.

Now I happen agree that all prospective adoptive parents should be screened- but there is a rather glaring hypocrisy(and one I have no answer for) that we have no such screening for prospective biological parents.

 

[Syriusly]

Children should have loving parents, but as you pointed out, there are several who are against such things for various reasons.

"Various reasons.." You mean like the thousands of studies that show a boy having a father and a girl having a mother is vital to their wellbeing? .

"that show a boy having a father and a girl having a mother is vital to their wellbeing?"

And here we start the cycle again:

"But Silhouette- if that is the case why are you not against divorce"

And then Silhouette says: "well its not having a father and mother that is vital- its the hope that they might have one"

Which of course no study supports- ever- but the voices in her head sure tell her that alot.

 

[Divine Wind]

....Now I happen agree that all prospective adoptive parents should be screened- but there is a rather glaring hypocrisy(and one I have no answer for) that we have no such screening for prospective biological parents.

The world has dallied with eugenics before. Doing it again might be a mistake.

 

[Syriusly]

....Now I happen agree that all prospective adoptive parents should be screened- but there is a rather glaring hypocrisy(and one I have no answer for) that we have no such screening for prospective biological parents.

The world has dallied with eugenics before. Doing it again might be a mistake.

Oh I agree- i was just pointing out the intellectual hypocrisy of our position of biological versus adoptive parents.

 

[Divine Wind]

....Now I happen agree that all prospective adoptive parents should be screened- but there is a rather glaring hypocrisy(and one I have no answer for) that we have no such screening for prospective biological parents.

The world has dallied with eugenics before. Doing it again might be a mistake.

Oh I agree- i was just pointing out the intellectual hypocrisy of our position of biological versus adoptive parents.

It's one thing for biological parents to abuse their children then have those children removed for their safe keeping. It's another thing for the state to hand those children to abusive parents. That's the big difference.

While I agree there is hypocrisy against gay parents, it's not the same thing.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Denying marriage to their parents does not help those children- it only hurts those children- by denying them the legal protections that the children of married couples get.

So why do you want their children to be hurt?

Just so you can feel better about your own marriage?

There is no such thing as a marriage between two people of the same sex. Treating a sick homosexual mockery of marriage as having any similarity to genuine marriage only cheapens and degrades the concept of marriage, and it does nothing at all to help those poor children who have been placed in a morally-unstable situation to be raised by sick perverts.

In advocating and defending this abuse of children, you forfeit any credibility in claiming any concern for their well-being. You reveal yourself to be staunchly-aligned with child-abusing sex perverts; against the interests of children.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no such thing as a marriage between two people of the same sex. Treating a sick homosexual mockery of marriage as having any similarity to genuine marriage only cheapens and degrades the concept of marriage, and it does nothing at all to help those poor children who have been placed in a morally-unstable situation to be raised by sick perverts.

In advocating and defending this abuse of children, you forfeit any credibility in claiming any concern for their well-being. You reveal yourself to be staunchly-aligned with child-abusing sex perverts; against the interests of children.

Thank you. And it looks like 85% of Americans agree with you.

 

[mdk]

Thank you. And it looks like 85% of Americans agree with you.

Proving yet again that self-delusion is the greatest of all human talents.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Thank you. And it looks like 85% of Americans agree with you.

Have you see this thread? The depravity of the left wrong knows no limits. This is an ideology that is willing to sacrifice innocent children on the alters of sexual perversion, insanity, and cold-blooded murder (abortion).

 

[Silhouette]

Thank you. And it looks like 85% of Americans agree with you.

Have you see this thread? The depravity of the left wrong knows no limits. This is an ideology that is willing to sacrifice innocent children on the alters of sexual perversion, insanity, and cold-blooded murder (abortion).

Thanks for that link. No I hadn't seen it. But let's say I didn't fall down in shock having read it. This cult wants children to be as perverse as possible, as young as possible...so their fresh meat supply will not run dry.

I've always said, even the cult itself does not know its own limits. Yet it will insist you accept them each new day they roll out deeper depravity...OR ELSE. Until election 2016 that is... The first thing the new administration should do is drain the swamp at the FCC. Then this crap would never find an audience in the first place. They're trying to normalize child sexual abuse into yet another generation. Best nip that shit in the bud right at the root.

 

[Silhouette]

....Now I happen agree that all prospective adoptive parents should be screened- but there is a rather glaring hypocrisy(and one I have no answer for) that we have no such screening for prospective biological parents.

The world has dallied with eugenics before. Doing it again might be a mistake.

Syriusly has problems pounding the square peg of her deviant sex utopia into the round hole of reality.

 

[Divine Wind]

There is no such thing as a marriage between two people of the same sex. Treating a sick homosexual mockery of marriage as having any similarity to genuine marriage only cheapens and degrades the concept of marriage, and it does nothing at all to help those poor children who have been placed in a morally-unstable situation to be raised by sick perverts.

In advocating and defending this abuse of children, you forfeit any credibility in claiming any concern for their well-being. You reveal yourself to be staunchly-aligned with child-abusing sex perverts; against the interests of children.

Would you ban divorce or multiple-marriages because they, too, cheapen and degrade marriage?

Newt Gingrich 3 marriages.

Rush Limbaugh 4 marriages.

Rudy Giuliani 3 marriages.

Donald Trump 3 marriages

 

[Silhouette]

Would you ban divorce or multiple-marriages because they, too, cheapen and degrade marriage?

Newt Gingrich 3 marriages....Rush Limbaugh 4 marriages....Rudy Giuliani 3 marriages....Donald Trump 3 marriages

They don't degrade marriage where children are regarded. The divorce preserves the part of the contract of mother/father for the sake of children's continued contact with both. A divorce reluctantly granted where two adults are at each other's throats daily, is in favor of the children, removing the hostility from their daily lives while still preserving the benefit via contract of mother and father to the kids.

So your question is a strawman. Perfection in marriage is never achieved. But that doesn't mean you take down the gold ring standard for people to try to grab for.

 

[Divine Wind]

....So your question is a strawman....

How was it a straw man? He posted "Treating a sick homosexual mockery of marriage as having any similarity to genuine marriage only cheapens and degrades the concept of marriage". I even bolded it so the less intelligent members could see what part I was referencing. Then I asked a question: "Would you ban divorce or multiple-marriages because they, too, cheapen and degrade marriage?"

A question you are dodging with your false accusations. The fact remains, every fucking gay in California could marry each other in the worlds largest pink sword fight and it would not affect my wife's and my marriage one iota. The straw man is morons trying to say someone outside a marriage degrades that marriage. It doesn't.

 

[Silhouette]

....So your question is a strawman....

How was it a straw man? He posted "Treating a sick homosexual mockery of marriage as having any similarity to genuine marriage only cheapens and degrades the concept of marriage". I even bolded it so the less intelligent members could see what part I was referencing. Then I asked a question: "Would you ban divorce or multiple-marriages because they, too, cheapen and degrade marriage?"

A question you are dodging with your false accusations. The fact remains, every fucking gay in California could marry each other in the worlds largest pink sword fight and it would not affect my wife's and my marriage one iota. The straw man is morons trying to say someone outside a marriage degrades that marriage. It doesn't.

It does cheapen and degrade marriage FROM THE GET-GO, WHERE CHILDREN ARE INVOLVED or anticipated to be involved (re: all marriages). He was correct in saying that.

YOUR strawman was to say "divorce of normal married people cheapens marriage where children are involved". It does not. Divorce is RELUCTANTLY granted and even then the children still receive the vital mother & father benefits of it long after it is dissolved. Proving my assertion that the marriage contract is primary for children's benefits and secondarily for the benefits of adults. The primary beneficiaries still retain mother & father upon divorce.

Gay marriage NEVER provides both a mother and father. Ergo, it cheapens and sullies the institution beyond repair where the primary beneficaries are concerned..

 

[mdk]

....So your question is a strawman....

How was it a straw man? He posted "Treating a sick homosexual mockery of marriage as having any similarity to genuine marriage only cheapens and degrades the concept of marriage". I even bolded it so the less intelligent members could see what part I was referencing. Then I asked a question: "Would you ban divorce or multiple-marriages because they, too, cheapen and degrade marriage?"

A question you are dodging with your false accusations. The fact remains, every fucking gay in California could marry each other in the worlds largest pink sword fight and it would not affect my wife's and my marriage one iota. The straw man is morons trying to say someone outside a marriage degrades that marriage. It doesn't.

It does cheapen and degrade marriage FROM THE GET-GO, WHERE CHILDREN ARE INVOLVED or anticipated to be involved (re: all marriages). He was correct in saying that.

YOUR strawman was to say "divorce of normal married people cheapens marriage where children are involved". It does not. Divorce is RELUCTANTLY granted and even then the children still receive the vital mother & father benefits of it long after it is dissolved. Proving my assertion that the marriage contract is primary for children's benefits and secondarily for the benefits of adults. The primary beneficiaries still retain mother & father upon divorce.

Gay marriage NEVER provides both a mother and father. Ergo, it cheapens and sullies the institution beyond repair where the primary beneficaries are concerned..

Divorces are not granted reluctantly. So long as you have the money you can march right down to the courthouse and get a divorce. Sorry, divorce cheapens marriages, but you're willing to overlook that fact b/c you're more interested in whining about gays.

Again, how does stopping gays from getting married suddenly make their children have a mother and father? Your solution doesn't address your problem. Every time I ask you either flee or deflect to polygamy and/or incest. Prohibiting gays from marrying doesn't stop them from raising their children.

 

[Divine Wind]

Gay marriage NEVER provides both a mother and father. Ergo, it cheapens and sullies the institution beyond repair where the primary beneficaries are concerned..

So you're okay with gay marriage as long as they don't have kids? What if a marriage with children breaks up because one of the spouses/parents is gay then marries gay? Would you make sure the child goes with the non-gay single parent over the married gay parents regardless of gender?

 

[Silhouette]

Gay marriage NEVER provides both a mother and father. Ergo, it cheapens and sullies the institution beyond repair where the primary beneficaries are concerned..

So you're okay with gay marriage as long as they don't have kids? What if a marriage with children breaks up because one of the spouses/parents is gay then marries gay? Would you make sure the child goes with the non-gay single parent over the married gay parents regardless of gender?

Nope, I'm not. How did you ever go from my considering so-called "gay marriage" which cheapens and destroys a contract primarily for children whose main benefit is mother AND father to "So you're okay with gay marriage..."?

No. It destroys the standard set for ALL children. Not just a select few here or there. And since we set law based on the whole and not rare exceptional parts away from the whole, I am NOT in favor of gay marriage AT ALL. And that is because it NEVER provides both mother and father in any instance, no children or children.

Marriage is about & for the children statistically expected to arrive. That's the reason even in divorce, their benefits are preserved.

If you are "gay" and have roped children into your lifestyle; you don't legally get the benefits of marriage in most states (Obergefell will be overturned in the next 4 years). Just as if you are polygamists or incest, those children you've roped into your lifestyle will never get the benefits of marriage. Marriage isn't a welfare program of benefits for all. It is a gold standard set to entice children away from those inferior situations to them.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There is no such thing as a marriage between two people of the same sex. Treating a sick homosexual mockery of marriage as having any similarity to genuine marriage only cheapens and degrades the concept of marriage….

Would you ban divorce or multiple-marriages because they, too, cheapen and degrade marriage?

Newt Gingrich 3 marriages.

Rush Limbaugh 4 marriages.

Rudy Giuliani 3 marriages.

Donald Trump 3 marriages

The high divorce rate is at least as much a symptom as it is a cause. I'm afraid it is not practical to ban divorce, but I will say that every divorce is a tragic occurrence, and the degree to which it has become common and widely-regarded as acceptable reflects very badly on our society.

 

[Divine Wind]

Nope, I'm not. How did you ever go from my considering so-called "gay marriage" which cheapens and destroys a contract primarily for children....

Are you saying people who marry without planning to have children shouldn't marry? WTF convoluted shit is this? I can understand if you're homophobic and don't want gays married in your church, but to dictate to straights about marriage or that it is "a contract primarily for children" is bullshit. Frankly I don't stick my nose into other peoples lives like asshole authoritarians love to do. All I ask is for them to get the fuck off my property. Why you feel compelled to dictate to others how to live, what to think and what to believe is your problem.