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

[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….

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.

Solution to the divorce problem? Don't get married.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Solution to the divorce problem? Don't get married.

And along with that, there is this…

A tragically-increasing rate of children being born and raised without a proper family, without a father and a mother. And those of you on the left wrong—when you're not denying this problem or dismissing the tragic significance, thereof—only ever offer to address it with even greater does of the same sort of poisonous policies that caused it in the first place. Liberalism truly is a mental and moral disease.

 

[Syriusly]

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. .

Well you are wrong.

In all 50 states.

 

[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.

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

Silhouette has problems because her live revolves around spreading hate at gays- and their kids.

Why does Silhouette want to injure children?

 

[Divine Wind]

Solution to the divorce problem? Don't get married.

And along with that, there is this…

A tragically-increasing rate of children being born and raised without a proper family, without a father and a mother. And those of you on the left wrong—when you're not denying this problem or dismissing the tragic significance, thereof—only ever offer to address it with even greater does of the same sort of poisonous policies that caused it in the first place. Liberalism truly is a mental and moral disease.

What is your solution? Forced sterilization? ZPG laws? Certainly not safe and cheap abortion, amirite? LOL

What does this have to do with the gays?

 

[Silhouette]

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. .

Well you are wrong.

In all 50 states.

Quasi....for now. Obergefell won't last four years. It has more legal holes than swiss cheese screen with measles. Not the least of which being a contract revision at its core benefits, eliminating the main beneficiaries from having representation at the Hearing.

Don't just take my word for it. 85% of people agree with me. See the poll at the top of the page. By 2020, the definition and parameters of marriage will be firmly ensconced at the state level where in Windsor 2013, the Court said 56 times that is precisely where it belongs. Just 5 people don't get to expand the idea of marriage (but still exclude some same or similar) without permission from the 300 million self-governed.. Like I said, Obergefell is like the biggest brick of legal swiss cheese known to mankind right now. A Jr. High poli-sci graduate could bring a beefsteak slab case challenging it and win. Skilled trial lawyers will mince it finely.

 

[Syriusly]

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. .

Well you are wrong.

In all 50 states.

Quasi....for now. Obergefell won't last four years. .

Nothing 'quasi' about it. No more 'quasi' than Loving v. Virginia.

Legal reality in all 50 states- which is why you are so determined to change that, so that you can bring harm to their children.

 

[Silhouette]

Loving was about race. Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit) found that homosexuality is not equivalent to race. Sorry.

 

[mdk]

Loving was about race. Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit) found that homosexuality is not equivalent to race. Sorry.

Stop lying. The Hively decision stated that homosexuality wasn't equivalent to the word sex concerning workplace discrimination in The Civil Rights Act.

 

[Silhouette]

Loving was about race. Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit) found that homosexuality is not equivalent to race. Sorry.

Stop lying. The Hively decision stated that homosexuality wasn't equivalent to the word sex concerning workplace discrimination in The Civil Rights Act.

Yes. Hively found that "sex" was and is a noun in the Civil Rights Act. That has implications when you understand that therefore, Hively also found that homosexual is a verb. It seems race and behaviors are not legally birds of the same nest.

Prepare yourselves accordingly because this will be examined more closely in the near future court challenges..

 

[mdk]

Loving was about race. Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit) found that homosexuality is not equivalent to race. Sorry.

Stop lying. The Hively decision stated that homosexuality wasn't equivalent to the word sex concerning workplace discrimination in The Civil Rights Act.

Yes. Hively found that "sex" was and is a noun in the Civil Rights Act. That has implications when you understand that therefore, Hively also found that homosexual is a verb. It seems race and behaviors are not legally birds of the same nest.

Prepare yourselves accordingly because this will be examined more closely in the near future court challenges..

Now you're just making up bullshit and assigning it to a court decision you've clearly never read in its entirety. Like always.

You'll have excuse me if I take your prediction with a very small grain of salt. Your prognosticating skills are legendary around here for being hysterically wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

Loving was about race..

Loving was about marriage- but you knew that.


Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

 

[Syriusly]

Loving was about race. Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit) found that homosexuality is not equivalent to race. Sorry.

Stop lying. The Hively decision stated that homosexuality wasn't equivalent to the word sex concerning workplace discrimination in The Civil Rights Act.

Yes. Hively found that "sex" was and is a noun in the Civil Rights Act. That has implications when you understand that therefore, Hively also found that homosexual is a verb. It seems race and behaviors are not legally birds of the same nest.

Prepare yourselves accordingly because this will be examined more closely in the near future court challenges..

Now you're just making up bullshit .

You do realize that you could just copy that- and use it to respond accurately to every single one of Silhouette's posts.

 

[Silhouette]

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Yes. Brothers and sisters and polygamists cannot marry. What's your point?

You see what I'm demonstrating? You're OK with descriptions of marriage in which no person was being discriminated against; set by the states. If men and women could marry, all men and women could marry. You're OK that brothers and sisters cannot marry. You're OK that polygamists cannot marry.

What you wanted was a singled out special redaction of marriage just for your cult, forced on the 50 states; where children become permanently divorced in the new contract, from the chance of ever having either a mother or father in their lives. And you "accomplished" that with your 5 pocket numbskull Justices who you snow-jobbed into believing "race=deviant sex behaviors" using Loving. Hively v Ivy Tech (2016) just put a stop to that false premise. And THAT's what's going to be built on for future cases unless the USSC stops it.

Better hope those Justices Trump picks are liberal hacks like the two Obama picked...

 

[Syriusly]

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Yes. Brothers and sisters and polygamists cannot marry. What's your point?

You see what I'm demonstrating? You're OK with descriptions of marriage in which no person was being discriminated against; set by the states. If men and women could marry, all men and women could marry. You're OK that brothers and sisters cannot marry. You're OK that polygamists cannot marry.

What you wanted was a singled out special redaction of marriage just for your cult, forced on the 50 states; where children become permanently divorced in the new contract, from the chance of ever having either a mother or father in their lives. And you "accomplished" that with your 5 pocket numbskull Justices who you snow-jobbed into believing "race=deviant sex behaviors" using Loving. Hively v Ivy Tech (2016) just put a stop to that false premise. And THAT's what's going to be built on for future cases unless the USSC stops it.

Better hope those Justices Trump picks are liberal hacks like the two Obama picked...

So you are saying that allowing mixed race couples marry- Loving v. Virginia- is the same as polygamous marriage?

Wow.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

[

I am just very happy that children can have married parents- even if their parents are gay.

Silhouette is pissed off that those children can have married parents.

What good does marriage do? The POINT of marriage is to ensure children are raised by a FATHER and a MOTHER.

Homosexual "marriage" not only fails to accomplish this, but in fact exists purely to discredit real marriage.

Dude....you are a BEAST. They're not ready for you.

 

[Silhouette]

What good does marriage do? The POINT of marriage is to ensure children are raised by a FATHER and a MOTHER.

Homosexual "marriage" not only fails to accomplish this, but in fact exists purely to discredit real marriage.

Yes. It seeks to mock the word & legally confine, via contract, children involved away from a vital mother or father for life.

 

[mdk]

Whiny pussies: "Gay marriage discredits and mocks my marriage."

 

[Silhouette]

Whiny pussies: "Gay marriage discredits and mocks my marriage."

No it mocks marriage, period. The word. The institution created to give mothers and fathers to children in a stable way.

It's like renaming zebras "skyscrapers". Or like McDonalds saying "hamburgers will no longer be offered for sale at McDonalds' worldwide".

 

[mdk]

Whiny pussies: "Gay marriage discredits and mocks my marriage."

No it mocks marriage, period. The word. The institution created to give mothers and fathers to children in a stable way.

It's like renaming zebras "skyscrapers". Or like McDonalds saying "hamburgers will no longer be offered for sale at McDonalds' worldwide".

If your marriage is mocked by another couple getting married then your marriage is the one you need to be concerned with, not mine.