Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate

[Skylar]

And again- what has that to do with marriage?

Whether a gay couple who is raising children is married or not- their children will call them whatever they end up calling them.

There is an immediate harm to the children whose parents are denied marriage- there is no harm to children whose parents are allowed to marry.

The sexual act of two homosexuals cannot produce children!

And? Infertile and childless couples by the millions are allowed to marry or remain married. And in fact no one is required to be able to procreate to get married.

Why would we exempt gays from marriage for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

There is no reason.

Because gays propose to create a domestic structure that deliberately precludes children when in fact both are fertile human beings and could have children in a real marriage. Not nearly the same as an unfortunate wedded couple who discover that one of them is infertile.

Again, no one is required to be able to have kids to get married. So why would we exclude gays from marriage for not being able to have kids?

The standard you're citing doesn't exist.

Because they chose a structure that makes kids impossible.

No one is required to have kids or be able to have them to get married. Rendering your 'structure that makes kids' irrelevant.

 

[Skylar]

They've tried. The result was win-loss record of 2 out of 46 cases.

With the USSC preserving every lower court ruling overturning gay marriage bans. Without exception.

And the USSC denying stay to every state attempting to defend gay marriage bans. Without exception.

As I said, half assed second string arguments that are laughed out of court.

All the bigger the shock to you homos when the Supreme Court's final decision returns the issue to the states where it belongs.

The difference between those of us who favor marriage equality for homosexual couples, and bigots like yourself is that if the Supreme Court does not find in favor of marriage equality for homosexual couples- I will not be calliing the Justice 'black robed fascists' as you will be doing if the Supreme Court doesn't rule the way you want.

Yes you will.

I think you're confusing Sy for yourself.

I don't think so.

We'll find out in June, won't we? Expect plenty of panty shitting hysterics from your ilk.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

All the bigger the shock to you homos when the Supreme Court's final decision returns the issue to the states where it belongs.

The difference between those of us who favor marriage equality for homosexual couples, and bigots like yourself is that if the Supreme Court does not find in favor of marriage equality for homosexual couples- I will not be calliing the Justice 'black robed fascists' as you will be doing if the Supreme Court doesn't rule the way you want.

Yes you will.

I think you're confusing Sy for yourself.

I don't think so.

We'll find out in June, won't we? Expect plenty of panty shitting hysterics from your ilk.

I think the haughtiness of the demonic left will set you up for a thunderous fall.

 

[Syriusly]

And you demonstrate again why same sex marriage opponents are so thoroughly fucked in court; You can't argue your actual motivations and beliefs. As they aren't accepted as valid in court.

So you're left with a series of half assed, second tier arguments that are laughed out of court with almost perfect regularity.

As for your personal religious beliefs on homosexuality, you're welcome to them. But neither I nor the courts really give a shit.

The people who believe as I do will present it in court in legaleze.

They've tried. The result was win-loss record of 2 out of 46 cases.

With the USSC preserving every lower court ruling overturning gay marriage bans. Without exception.

And the USSC denying stay to every state attempting to defend gay marriage bans. Without exception.

As I said, half assed second string arguments that are laughed out of court.

All the bigger the shock to you homos when the Supreme Court's final decision returns the issue to the states where it belongs.

The difference between those of us who favor marriage equality for homosexual couples, and bigots like yourself is that if the Supreme Court does not find in favor of marriage equality for homosexual couples- I will not be calliing the Justice 'black robed fascists' as you will be doing if the Supreme Court doesn't rule the way you want.

Yes you will.

LOL....I am not a hypocrite.

I think the Supreme Court was wrong in Citizen's United- but I don't call them 'black robed fascists' for overturning the law.

I think the Supreme Court was wrong in Bush v. Gore- but still I accepted that they had the authority to overturn the Florida Supreme court's decision- and I never called them 'black robed fascists' for overturning the law.

You?

You will be whining and whining and whining.....like a little girl who doesn't get the desert she wanted....

 

[Syriusly]

The difference between those of us who favor marriage equality for homosexual couples, and bigots like yourself is that if the Supreme Court does not find in favor of marriage equality for homosexual couples- I will not be calliing the Justice 'black robed fascists' as you will be doing if the Supreme Court doesn't rule the way you want.

Yes you will.

I think you're confusing Sy for yourself.

I don't think so.

We'll find out in June, won't we? Expect plenty of panty shitting hysterics from your ilk.

I think the haughtiness of the demonic left will set you up for a thunderous fall.

Again- we will find out in June.

Lets look at our reactions then- only 3 months away- I predict that if court allows gay marriage to prevail you will blow gaskets and call the justices all sorts of vile names, perhaps claim that the court was rigged or claim that the decision is invalid.

If the Supreme Court rules that states can prevent gay marriage- I can say right now- I will disagree- but I won't be calling the justices names, or claiming that the decision was rigged, or that the decision is not valid.

Lets check back in 3 months.

 

[Syriusly]

And again- what has that to do with marriage?

Whether a gay couple who is raising children is married or not- their children will call them whatever they end up calling them.

There is an immediate harm to the children whose parents are denied marriage- there is no harm to children whose parents are allowed to marry.

The sexual act of two homosexuals cannot produce children!

And? Infertile and childless couples by the millions are allowed to marry or remain married. And in fact no one is required to be able to procreate to get married.

Why would we exempt gays from marriage for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

There is no reason.

Because gays propose to create a domestic structure that deliberately precludes children when in fact both are fertile human beings and could have children in a real marriage. Not nearly the same as an unfortunate wedded couple who discover that one of them is infertile.

Again, no one is required to be able to have kids to get married. So why would we exclude gays from marriage for not being able to have kids?

The standard you're citing doesn't exist.

Because they chose a structure that makes kids impossible.

No more than any couple that is sterile does.

No one is required to have kids to get married.

Wisconsin even requires some couples to prove that they cannot physically have children before they allow them to marry.

There is no requirement to be able to have, to want to have or to ever have children in order to be married.

 

[Syriusly]

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

There is an immediate psychological injury to a boy who has no one to call "Dad" and a girl who has no one to call "Mom" in an experimental marriage.

Which is worse, longterm?

And again- what has that to do with marriage?

Whether a gay couple who is raising children is married or not- their children will call them whatever they end up calling them.

There is an immediate harm to the children whose parents are denied marriage- there is no harm to children whose parents are allowed to marry.

The sexual act of two homosexuals cannot produce children!

And? Infertile and childless couples by the millions are allowed to marry or remain married. And in fact no one is required to be able to procreate to get married.

Why would we exempt gays from marriage for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

There is no reason.

Because gays propose to create a domestic structure that deliberately precludes children when in fact both are fertile human beings and could have children in a real marriage. Not nearly the same as an unfortunate wedded couple who discover that one of them is infertile.

What if the two gays are infertile- would it be okay for them to marry just like the infertile heterosexual couple then?

 

[Skylar]

The difference between those of us who favor marriage equality for homosexual couples, and bigots like yourself is that if the Supreme Court does not find in favor of marriage equality for homosexual couples- I will not be calliing the Justice 'black robed fascists' as you will be doing if the Supreme Court doesn't rule the way you want.

Yes you will.

I think you're confusing Sy for yourself.

I don't think so.

We'll find out in June, won't we? Expect plenty of panty shitting hysterics from your ilk.

I think the haughtiness of the demonic left will set you up for a thunderous fall.

I think that draping your failing argument in religious language isn't going to make it any more likely to win in June.

If you want a nifty preview of the upcoming ruling, read Scalia's dissent of the Windsor v. US ruling. Pay special attention to the words 'inevitable' and 'beyond mistaking'. And note the utter lack of melodramatic terms like 'demonic'.

Just an FYI.

 

[Skylar]

There is an immediate psychological injury to a boy who has no one to call "Dad" and a girl who has no one to call "Mom" in an experimental marriage.

Which is worse, longterm?

And again- what has that to do with marriage?

Whether a gay couple who is raising children is married or not- their children will call them whatever they end up calling them.

There is an immediate harm to the children whose parents are denied marriage- there is no harm to children whose parents are allowed to marry.

The sexual act of two homosexuals cannot produce children!

And? Infertile and childless couples by the millions are allowed to marry or remain married. And in fact no one is required to be able to procreate to get married.

Why would we exempt gays from marriage for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

There is no reason.

Because gays propose to create a domestic structure that deliberately precludes children when in fact both are fertile human beings and could have children in a real marriage. Not nearly the same as an unfortunate wedded couple who discover that one of them is infertile.

What if the two gays are infertile- would it be okay for them to marry just like the infertile heterosexual couple then?

Nope. See, Mikey is a superb example of everything that's wrong with gay marriage opposition. He's motivated by religion. But religion isn't a logical or legal argument. So he and his ilk are left with half assed second tier arguments that don't work.

And thus the record of 2 of 46 federal rulings.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yes you will.

I think you're confusing Sy for yourself.

I don't think so.

We'll find out in June, won't we? Expect plenty of panty shitting hysterics from your ilk.

I think the haughtiness of the demonic left will set you up for a thunderous fall.

I think that draping your failing argument in religious language isn't going to make it any more likely to win in June.

If you want a nifty preview of the upcoming ruling, read Scalia's dissent of the Windsor v. US ruling. Pay special attention to the words 'inevitable' and 'beyond mistaking'. And note the utter lack of melodramatic terms like 'demonic'.

Just an FYI.

Legal is only one facet of this. There's also a spiritual facet, you perverts being the forces of Satan, so sure nothing can deprive you of victory. I can focus on whatever facet I want.

 

[Skylar]

I think you're confusing Sy for yourself.

I don't think so.

We'll find out in June, won't we? Expect plenty of panty shitting hysterics from your ilk.

I think the haughtiness of the demonic left will set you up for a thunderous fall.

I think that draping your failing argument in religious language isn't going to make it any more likely to win in June.

If you want a nifty preview of the upcoming ruling, read Scalia's dissent of the Windsor v. US ruling. Pay special attention to the words 'inevitable' and 'beyond mistaking'. And note the utter lack of melodramatic terms like 'demonic'.

Just an FYI.

Legal is only one facet of this. There's also a spiritual facet, you perverts being the forces of Satan, so sure nothing can deprive you of victory. I can focus on whatever facet I want.

The 'spiritual facet' is hopelessly subjective. The legal facet, much less so. And its the legal issues that the courts will be ruling on.

You can't argue your 'being the forces of Satan' schtick in court. So you're left with the hot mess of 'gays can't have kids' as your basis for excluding them from marriage.

Despite the fact that NO ONE is required to have kids to get married. Can you see why your ilk keep losing in court? What actually motivates isn't evidence in any court. And you're left with half-assed, second tier legal arguments that are laughably bad.

 

[Silhouette]

States make a calculated anticipation that children will arrive to a marriage. It's the only reason states incentivize them in the first place: to entice the best formative environment for kids: father/mother. A state isn't about enforcing that a marriage has children. That would be fascist. So it does the next best thing: it incentivizes father/mother marriage in the best interest of the kids.

It also reluctantly grants divorce for the same reason: the kids. If the hoped for best environment grows too toxic because of the transient personalities involved, the state grants divorce and really haggles in family court over what situation would be best for the children in custody arrangements. Again, it's about the kids' best interest. From a state's point of view, marriage IS children.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

States make a calculated anticipation that children will arrive to a marriage. It's the only reason states incentivize them in the first place: to entice the best formative environment for kids: father/mother. A state isn't about enforcing that a marriage has children. That would be fascist. So it does the next best thing: it incentivizes father/mother marriage in the best interest of the kids.

It also reluctantly grants divorce for the same reason: the kids. If the hoped for best environment grows too toxic because of the transient personalities involved, the state grants divorce and really haggles in family court over what situation would be best for the children in custody arrangements. Again, it's about the kids' best interest. From a state's point of view, marriage IS children.

Wrong.

Time and again those hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans have failed to provide objective, documented evidence in support of the idiotic notion that children who live in homes with same-sex parents are somehow 'disadvantaged.'

You care nothing for the welfare of children, having realized you've lost the legal argument you attempt now to engage in fear-mongering and demagoguery by propagating the lie that same-sex couples can't be good parents.

 

[TimothysAlaska]

Let's see verses that deal with divorce! And the punishment is death....

Matthew 19:9 - And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Romans 7:2 - For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband.

Luke 16:18 - Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from [her] husband committeth adultery.

Exodus 20:14 - Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Proverbs 6:32 - [But] whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he [that] doeth it destroyeth his own soul.

Matthew 5:32 - But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Leviticus 20:10 - And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

1 Corinthians 7:11 - But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to [her] husband: and let not the husband put away [his] wife.

Matthew 5:31-32 - It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: (Read More...)

Romans 7:3 - So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

1 Corinthians 7:1-40 - Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman. (Read More...)

Malachi 2:16 - For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for [one] covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

Ephesians 5:33 - Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband.

1 Corinthians 7:15 - But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such [cases]: but God hath called us to peace.

Mark 10:11-12 - And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. (Read More...)

Matthew 5:27-28 - Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: (Read More...)

Galatians 5:19 - Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

Hebrews 13:4 - Marriage [is] honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Titus 1:6 - If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 - When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house. (Read More...)

Mark 10:11 - And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

Let's see the verses dealing with homosexuality

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (Read More...)

Romans 1:26-28 - For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (Read More...)

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

1 Timothy 1:10 - For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

1 Corinthians 7:2 - Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

1 Timothy 1:10-11 - For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (Read More...)

Mark 10:6-9 - But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Read More...)

Jude 1:7 - Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Romans 13:8-10 - Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. (Read More...)

James 4:12 - There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

Romans 1:32 - Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Romans 1:27 - And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.



You guys are hypocrites! Picking and choosing which verses to follow!!! Nice
May as well have shira law as the muslims I do not see the difference. In fact your perfect world the way you guys are talking about gives nobody free will and is exactly as the muslims whom you hate are like.

i am offended by gays and won't sell them flowers or cakes but I like divorcees and will sell to them for every one of their divorces......

Marriage is what you make it! No law can tell you what that is! It is what you and your spouse says it is and if that is a religious covenant then so be it!

Atheists get married are you going to deny them?

Pagans get married
Budist get married
New age people get married
They make the marriage what they make it! Wether religious or not

Ok the kids! Ok give the kids the rights then and take away parental rights so the child gets to decide who are their parents, let's let kids divorce their parents, after all they can make their own decisions right?

You guys don't give a damn about the kids and are just using this retarded argument to further your hate! I would love to see one of your kids walk up to you and tell you " I have rights and I am going to live with jimmies parents because he is kewl! ".

Gimme a break man.

Even if all gay marriages were abolished there would still be gay people with children.

Military allows gays now and I did not see one instance where it affected anyone negatively none! I worked with gay people and you know what? They are just people! And I never had a gay person tell me he or she hated anyone! So go smoke your pipe dream where gays, divorcees and anyone nonchristian are stoned to death in the streets!

Lmfao. Meanwhile in the real world gay marraige is becoming a reality!

 

[Silhouette]

States make a calculated anticipation that children will arrive to a marriage. It's the only reason states incentivize them in the first place: to entice the best formative environment for kids: father/mother. A state isn't about enforcing that a marriage has children. That would be fascist. So it does the next best thing: it incentivizes father/mother marriage in the best interest of the kids.

It also reluctantly grants divorce for the same reason: the kids. If the hoped for best environment grows too toxic because of the transient personalities involved, the state grants divorce and really haggles in family court over what situation would be best for the children in custody arrangements. Again, it's about the kids' best interest. From a state's point of view, marriage IS children.

Wrong.

Time and again those hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans have failed to provide objective, documented evidence in support of the idiotic notion that children who live in homes with same-sex parents are somehow 'disadvantaged.'

You care nothing for the welfare of children, having realized you've lost the legal argument you attempt now to engage in fear-mongering and demagoguery by propagating the lie that same-sex couples can't be good parents.

1. There is no such thing as a "gay American". There are Americans who practice gay sex. I think you're confused here.

2. What about people who practice homosexuality being hostile to the rights of boys to have a father or girls to have a mother in a married home? When does the discussion of children's civil rights come into play here? Never?

 

[Skylar]

States make a calculated anticipation that children will arrive to a marriage.

And every single State has also recognized that those who can't have kids are still eligible to marry. As no one is required to have kids or be able to have them in order to get married.

So the standard you insist we use to exclude gays doesn't exist, nor applies to anyone.

Why then would we make up an imaginary standard that applies to no one, exclude every straight couple, and then apply it exclusively to gays for the sole purpose of excluding them from marriage?

There is no reason. Your proposal is a spectacular equal protection violation. Which is why gay marriage bans keep losing when held to the standards of the 14th amendment.

 

[LittleNipper]

LITTLENIPPER SAID:

“Two men wish to live together, that's entirely on them. They should not expect society at large to fulfill their desire to feel normal.”

They are normal, and currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, where recognizing their right to marry comports with the Constitution and its case law.

That you perceive them as 'abnormal' is subjective and irrelevant, and not justification to deny them their civil rights.

Anal abuse is an unhealthy and dangerous practice. One that can led to serous complications. And oral sex is not necessary to a healthy active heterosexual relationship. Homosexuality was and is still considered a dysfunctional behavior pattern by the medical profession ----- as has always been the case.

'anal abuse'? Millions of heterosexuals participate in anal intercourse.
Oral sex is not necessary- but overwhelmingly desired by most of the population.
Homosexuality is not considered a dysfunctional behavior pattern by the medical profession.

Anything else?

It is not a good thing and far less people are willing to do it than you imagine.

 

[LittleNipper]

Why then would we make up an imaginary standard that applies to no one, exclude every straight couple, and then apply it exclusively to gays for the sole purpose of excluding them from marriage?

There is no reason. Your proposal is a spectacular equal protection violation. Which is why gay marriage bans keep losing when held to the standards of the 14th amendment.

There is no imaginary standard. There is a Judeo/Christian standard. And there is a Secular/Humanist standard. The last one is the one you want for this nation and the entire world at all costs. It doesn't matter how immoral it may be, or how sick it has been revealed time and time again, or how anti-children and family it is.

 

[Syriusly]

States make a calculated anticipation that children will arrive to a marriage. It's the only reason states incentivize them in the first place: to entice the best formative environment for kids: father/mother. A state isn't about enforcing that a marriage has children. That would be fascist. So it does the next best thing: it incentivizes father/mother marriage in the best interest of the kids.

It also reluctantly grants divorce for the same reason: the kids. If the hoped for best environment grows too toxic because of the transient personalities involved, the state grants divorce and really haggles in family court over what situation would be best for the children in custody arrangements. Again, it's about the kids' best interest. From a state's point of view, marriage IS children.

Wrong.

Time and again those hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans have failed to provide objective, documented evidence in support of the idiotic notion that children who live in homes with same-sex parents are somehow 'disadvantaged.'

You care nothing for the welfare of children, having realized you've lost the legal argument you attempt now to engage in fear-mongering and demagoguery by propagating the lie that same-sex couples can't be good parents.

1. There is no such thing as a "gay American". There are Americans who practice gay sex. I think you're confused here.

Now you are creating your own definitions?

There are 'gay Americans' just as there are "Jewish Americans" and as there are Irish Americans.

And there are also Americans who engage in various kinds of sex.

But a person can be a 'Gay American' and never, ever had any sex of any kind.

 

[Syriusly]

Why then would we make up an imaginary standard that applies to no one, exclude every straight couple, and then apply it exclusively to gays for the sole purpose of excluding them from marriage?

There is no reason. Your proposal is a spectacular equal protection violation. Which is why gay marriage bans keep losing when held to the standards of the 14th amendment.

There is no imaginary standard. There is a Judeo/Christian standard. And there is a Secular/Humanist standard. The last one is the one you want for this nation and the entire world at all costs. It doesn't matter how immoral it may be, or how sick it has been revealed time and time again, or how anti-children and family it is.

yet you are creating an imaginary standard that does not exist legally in order to justify banning marriage because you find the sex that the couple may be having as 'icky'.