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

[Toro]

Yes, it's very important.

I travel 12-14 hours one way 4-5 times a year to see my parents. It's important. I am with them now.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Yes, it's very important.

I travel 12-14 hours one way 4-5 times a year to see my parents. It's important. I am with them now.

 

[Silhouette]

My mom was important to me. My dad was important to me. My sister was important to me. My grandmother was important to me.

That doesn't mean I was entitled to have all of them in my life- I was just fortunate. Just like a girl with two mom's is fortunate to have them in her life- and the boy with the single mom is fortunate to have her in his life.

Remember again- marriage does not mean children. Children do not mean marriage. Parents are important to their children. If I had someway to snap my fingers and ensure that every child in the United States had two loving caring married parents- i would do so in an instant.

.

I notice you didn't say "Just like a BOY with two moms is fortunate to have them in HIS life".

You do have a way to snap your fingers and have both the essential mother and father in a child's life. It's called MARRIAGE. THAT'S WHY STATES INCENTIVIZED THEM TO ENTICE THAT EXACT SCENARIO INTO BEING. Now instead your cult would deprive a boy of a father or a girl of a mother FOR LIFE by that very institution that used to entice providing those essential beings to the kids.

And, marriage IS about children. It's why it was invented back before we started keeping track of time. To make sure every boy had a father and every girl a mother. Because you see, children come in both distinct genders and so should their married parents.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, it's very important.

I travel 12-14 hours one way 4-5 times a year to see my parents. It's important. I am with them now.

So just curious, you are a male happy to have both mom and dad or a female happy to have both mom and dad?

 

[Syriusly]

My mom was important to me. My dad was important to me. My sister was important to me. My grandmother was important to me.

That doesn't mean I was entitled to have all of them in my life- I was just fortunate. Just like a girl with two mom's is fortunate to have them in her life- and the boy with the single mom is fortunate to have her in his life.

Remember again- marriage does not mean children. Children do not mean marriage. Parents are important to their children. If I had someway to snap my fingers and ensure that every child in the United States had two loving caring married parents- i would do so in an instant.

.

I notice you didn't say "Just like a BOY with two moms is fortunate to have them in HIS life".

You do have a way to snap your fingers and have both the essential mother and father in a child's life. It's called MARRIAGE. .

No- marriage doesn't guarantee a thing. And you know that- marriages can end in divorce and suddenly the kids are being raised by a mother living in one place and a dad living in another- the marriage didn't guarantee that the kids would have married parents.

Nor does marriage guarantee that a dad will be their to raise his son and daughter or that a mom will be.

If being married guaranteed two loving caring married parents- then there would be no child abuse by legally married fathers- and step fathers. There would be no children neglected by their drug addled legally married parents.

It is obvious you don't care about parenting at all- you don't care whether children have good parents or any parents- you care about denying marriage to gays- and harming any children that they may be raising.

You want to deny them marriage- just as you want to deny them all their civil rights.

 

[Moonglow]

I had one Mom and 5 step dads....

 

[Syriusly]

I had one Mom and 5 step dads....

And that is marriage the way God intended.

 

[Moonglow]

I had one Mom and 5 step dads....

And that is marriage the way God intended.

Not really since Adam had two wives...We are getting ripped off in today's society...

 

[Slyhunter]

So, mom and dad were important figures for you too, as well as the other 85% of the responders to the poll.

My mom was important to me. My dad was important to me. My sister was important to me. My grandmother was important to me.

That doesn't mean I was entitled to have all of them in my life- I was just fortunate. Just like a girl with two mom's is fortunate to have them in her life- and the boy with the single mom is fortunate to have her in his life.

Remember again- marriage does not mean children. Children do not mean marriage. Parents are important to their children. If I had someway to snap my fingers and ensure that every child in the United States had two loving caring married parents- i would do so in an instant.

But our system doesn't require parents to be married. Or married couples to have children. Or married couples with children to stay together. Or even that both parents actually raise the children.

If Betty is being raised by her mom- and her dad lives 3,000 miles away- she is being raised by a single parent.- and hopefully a good single parent.
If Betty is being raised by her mom, and her mom's wife- and her dad lives 3,000 miles away- she is being raised by two parents- and hopefully they are both good parents.
Now- if Betty's two mom's get married- then she would have two married mom's- and her dad would be 3,000 miles away- and their children would all be better off than if Betty was single- or the two mom's were not married.

And that really is the crux of it. You know that denying marriage to the gay parents of children just harms their children- and you keep pursuing it- because obviously you want to harm their children.

I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
People who want to deny marriage to gay parents don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is ******* steak.

 

[Silhouette]

I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
People who want to deny marriage to gay parents don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is ******* steak.

How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children? All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father. Pretty messed up eh? The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.

Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.

 

[Moonglow]

I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
People who want to deny marriage to gay parents don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is ******* steak.

How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children? All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father. Pretty messed up eh? The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.

Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.

That is only for legal contracts a person entered into as a minor. Children do not enter into a marriage contract of their parents, only themselves...

 

[mdk]

Do you remember all the oral arguments and Amicus briefs opposing gay marriage citing the Infancy Doctrine as their reason? Yeah, me neither.

 

[mdk]

I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
People who want to deny marriage to gay parents don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is ******* steak.

How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children? All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father. Pretty messed up eh? The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.

Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.

That is only for legal contracts a person entered into as a minor. Children do not enter into a marriage contract of their parents, only themselves...

In Sil's imaginary legal world, children that don't exist yet are an implicit party to a marriage contract. Mind you, not a single court in this nation recognizes that legal standard, but none of that matters when you have a mentally ill obsession.

 

[Moonglow]

I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
People who want to deny marriage to gay parents don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is ******* steak.

How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children? All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father. Pretty messed up eh? The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.

Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.

That is only for legal contracts a person entered into as a minor. Children do not enter into a marriage contract of their parents, only themselves...

In Sil's imaginary legal world, children that don't exist yet are an implicit party to a marriage contract. Mind you, not a single court in this nation recognizes that legal standard, but none of that matters when you have a mentally ill obsession.

I guess that emancipation to her is only about the black slaves also..

 

[Silhouette]

I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
People who want to deny marriage to gay parents don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is ******* steak.

How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children? All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father. Pretty messed up eh? The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.

Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.

That is only for legal contracts a person entered into as a minor. Children do not enter into a marriage contract of their parents, only themselves...

We'll see... Time immemorial to present is a loooooooonnng precedent to beat my friend for the rights of children to both mother and father from marriage...the reason it was created was for them, not the adults.

 

[Moonglow]

I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
People who want to deny marriage to gay parents don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is ******* steak.

How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children? All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father. Pretty messed up eh? The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.

Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.

That is only for legal contracts a person entered into as a minor. Children do not enter into a marriage contract of their parents, only themselves...

We'll see... Time immemorial to present is a loooooooonnng precedent to beat my friend for the rights of children to both mother and father from marriage...the reason it was created was for them, not the adults.

When two adults get married they do not have the child enter the contract, thus they are not on the marriage certificate...The law you cite is for minors that enter into contracts with adults.. The child doesn't enter into any contract with parents..Notice that kids do not sue their parents for neglect..

 

[mdk]

I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
People who want to deny marriage to gay parents don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is ******* steak.

How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children? All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father. Pretty messed up eh? The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.

Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.

That is only for legal contracts a person entered into as a minor. Children do not enter into a marriage contract of their parents, only themselves...

We'll see... Time immemorial to present is a loooooooonnng precedent to beat my friend for the rights of children to both mother and father from marriage...the reason it was created was for them, not the adults.

Marriage was created for children, not adults. That's why we revoke and void marriages of those that don't or can't have any children.

 

[Slyhunter]

I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
People who want to deny marriage to gay parents don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is ******* steak.

How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children? All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father. Pretty messed up eh? The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.

Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.

That is only for legal contracts a person entered into as a minor. Children do not enter into a marriage contract of their parents, only themselves...

We'll see... Time immemorial to present is a loooooooonnng precedent to beat my friend for the rights of children to both mother and father from marriage...the reason it was created was for them, not the adults.

Time to modernize. There is no proof that children need both a father and a mother. No proof that parents are the only role models in a child's life or that their genders need to be one man and one woman. The time when we needed women at home producing fighters to die in a Kings battle is long past. And it's time to stop fighting the inevitable wave of change. That doesn't mean it can't be slowed down a bit. Or that common sense doesn't dictate that 30 year old cross dressers shouldn't share bathrooms with 14 year old girls. Much less High School Boys, like myself at one time, sharing showers with my hearts ever lasting lusting desire. I doubt I would've been able to handle my hormones in such a situation. I feel sorry for those with more control of themselves. It'll be their fault that biological parenting is about to become obsolete and cloning, or tank children will be required in order to prevent the genocide of the Human race. But I won't be around much longer so that don't matter much.

 

[Slyhunter]

I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
People who want to deny marriage to gay parents don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is ******* steak.

How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children? All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father. Pretty messed up eh? The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.

Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.

That is only for legal contracts a person entered into as a minor. Children do not enter into a marriage contract of their parents, only themselves...

We'll see... Time immemorial to present is a loooooooonnng precedent to beat my friend for the rights of children to both mother and father from marriage...the reason it was created was for them, not the adults.

Marriage was created for children, not adults. That's why we revoke and void marriages of those that don't or can't have any children.

Animals don't get married, they seem to figure out what they need to do without a contract.

 

[Moonglow]

I agreed with you before I read the last paragraph.
People who want to deny marriage to gay parents don't want to harm their children. They feel it waters down their own values of marriage to have it include the gays. Kind of like calling Sirloin steak steak. It's not steak it's dog food. Rib eye is ******* steak.

How do you feel about "gay marriage" being a contractual relationship that actually harms children? All gay marriages contain the implied binder that any children involved will be disenfranchised for life from either a mother or father. Pretty messed up eh? The thing is that no contract implicitly including children or anticipating their inclusion may contain terms detrimental to them.

Ergo, the gay marriage contract is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.

That is only for legal contracts a person entered into as a minor. Children do not enter into a marriage contract of their parents, only themselves...

We'll see... Time immemorial to present is a loooooooonnng precedent to beat my friend for the rights of children to both mother and father from marriage...the reason it was created was for them, not the adults.

Marriage was created for children, not adults. That's why we revoke and void marriages of those that don't or can't have any children.

Animals don't get married, they seem to figure out what they need to do without a contract.

Marriage contracts are an ancient form of guarantee that women had when they were severely repressed by a patriarchal society...By all means of the equality women now have, marriage contracts are unnecessary...