Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing?

[mdk]

Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum (I urge you to visit the links posted and read the surveys because they are very important for each reader here to understand straight from the source).

If I were you I wouldn't want folks digging too deep into The Prince's Trust b/c it says almost nothing you claim it does. The fact that you continue to lie about it's findings should come as no shock to any of us.

 

[Syriusly]

Your entire post is a logical fallacy.

Did you bother to read it?

I certainly didn't- it was just the usual Silhouette crap.

 

[Syriusly]

Good then brothers and sisters and polygamists may marry since "the structure of a marriage is in no way about children, and, therefore, anyone can marry anyone they like if they are consenting adults". Glad you finally admitted that...

I've never had a problem with that although currently it's limited to just two. Why should you care if siblings or close relations marry?

More important is the question why states should worry: inbreeding creates predictable deformation and ill health in children. Hence why they don't incentivize those marriages. You agree they are still illegal for precisely that point, yes?

No- that is not why it is illegal for siblings to marry.

Wisconsin allows First cousins to marry- but only if they can prove they cannot procreate.
Wisconson does not allow siblings to marry- regardless of whether they can procreate.

So- clearly Wisconsins prohibition on siblings marrying is not based upon procreation- otherwise they could allow siblings to marry just as First cousins can.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage is neither for nor about children.

Similarly, a driver's license is neither for nor about operating cars on a roadway....

There is no requirement to own a car in order to get a driver's license. It's assumed you will drive at some point.

And it's assumed that you will have children at some point but no license is required. Most people can figure that out on their own.

But you want to know something ironic? When questioned about legalizing polygamy, LGBT's FIRST point is "those marriages are harmful to the children involved; so they MUST remain illegal..."...

When does 'LGBT' say anything about polygamy? I mean other than in your head?

I assume you support polygamous marriages- since you think children must be in families with a father and mother.....s

 

[Asclepias]

Your entire post is a logical fallacy.

Did you bother to read it?

I certainly didn't- it was just the usual Silhouette crap.

I was hoping at some point it would make sense. That never happened.

 

[Syriusly]

Your entire post is a logical fallacy.

Did you bother to read it?

I certainly didn't- it was just the usual Silhouette crap.

I was hoping at some point it would make sense. That never happened.

They never do- if I looked back most of the OP is almost certainly a copy and paste of previous irrational screams for help also.

 

[Silhouette]

When does 'LGBT' say anything about polygamy? I mean other than in your head?

I assume you support polygamous marriages- since you think children must be in families with a father and mother.....s

I have brought up polygamy and if it should be forced on the 50 states as well. First LGBTs here and elsewhere screamed foul that polygamy was illegal. Then it became decriminalized in Utah and so I brought it up again. Then LGBTs here and elsewhere screamed foul (before June's mistrial Opinion) that "polygamy is bad for children! Warren Jeffs...! They're a cult!.."...lumping all polygamists in with Warren Jeffs. And, all prior to June we heard nothing but from LGBTs about "how gay marriage has to be legitimized for the sake of children!".

And now suddenly LGBTs are saying "marriage is in no way about children"....

Odd.

 

[Syriusly]

When does 'LGBT' say anything about polygamy? I mean other than in your head?

I assume you support polygamous marriages- since you think children must be in families with a father and mother.....s

I have brought up polygamy and if it should be forced on the 50 states as well. First LGBTs here and elsewhere screamed foul that polygamy was illegal. Then it became decriminalized in Utah and so I brought it up again. Then LGBTs here and elsewhere screamed foul (before June's mistrial Opinion) that "polygamy is bad for children! Warren Jeffs...! They're a cult!.."...lumping all polygamists in with Warren Jeffs. And, all prior to June we heard nothing but from LGBTs about "how gay marriage has to be legitimized for the sake of children!".

And now suddenly LGBTs are saying "marriage is in no way about children"....

Odd.

The only thing 'odd' is how you pull crap out of your ass.

No one was screaming foul about anything.
Polygamous marriage is just as illegal as it was a year ago- just as illegal as it was 50 years ago.

And happy gay couples are still marrying.

 

[bodecea]

Marriage neither for nor about children.

Similar Paint-logic: , "a driver's license is neither for nor about operating cars on a roadway...."

There is no requirement to own a car in order to get a driver's license. Yet, the state assumes you will drive at some point, so they make you live up to certain standards in order to get a driver's license...

Is that why people in NYC get drivers' licenses? Even tho they never have to own a car?

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage neither for nor about children.

Similar Paint-logic: , "a driver's license is neither for nor about operating cars on a roadway...."

There is no requirement to own a car in order to get a driver's license. Yet, the state assumes you will drive at some point, so they make you live up to certain standards in order to get a driver's license...

Is that why people in NYC get drivers' licenses? Even tho they never have to own a car?

Change the subject often? Oh, right, it's you...so...yes..

 

[Silhouette]

When does 'LGBT' say anything about polygamy? I mean other than in your head?

I assume you support polygamous marriages- since you think children must be in families with a father and mother.....s

I have brought up polygamy and if it should be forced on the 50 states as well. First LGBTs here and elsewhere screamed foul that polygamy was illegal. Then it became decriminalized in Utah and so I brought it up again. Then LGBTs here and elsewhere screamed foul (before June's mistrial Opinion) that "polygamy is bad for children! Warren Jeffs...! They're a cult!.."...lumping all polygamists in with Warren Jeffs. And, all prior to June we heard nothing but from LGBTs about "how gay marriage has to be legitimized for the sake of children!".
And now suddenly LGBTs are saying "marriage is in no way about children"....Odd.

The only thing 'odd' is how you pull crap out of your ass.

No one was screaming foul about anything.
Polygamous marriage is just as illegal as it was a year ago- just as illegal as it was 50 years ago.

And happy gay couples are still marrying.

Why is polygamous marriage illegal? Is it because states have voted to keep it illegal? And is that because states are concerned about the wellbeing of children who will be caught up in those marriages?... Like say...how a state might be concerned also with the deprivation of a child of either a mother or father as a state-incentivized institution?

Gay marriage is as illegal as polygamy since "marriage equality" is about all people, not just your pet favorite sexual kinks. Polygamy was decriminalized in Utah by the Brown family; or hadn't you heard?

 

[Skylar]

Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum (I urge you to visit the links posted and read the surveys because they are very important for each reader here to understand straight from the source).

If I were you I wouldn't want folks digging too deep into The Prince's Trust b/c it says almost nothing you claim it does. The fact that you continue to lie about it's findings should come as no shock to any of us.

Far from Silo's blatant lies, the Prince Trust study actually refutes her arguments.

As it cites mentoring programs as providing good same sex rolemodels. Obliterating the narrative that ONLY a mother or a father can provide sucha good same sex rolemodel.

So Sil ignores her own source. As there is nothing she won't ignore to cling to her little thumbsucker threads.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage neither for nor about children.

Similar Paint-logic: , "a driver's license is neither for nor about operating cars on a roadway...."

There is no requirement to own a car in order to get a driver's license. Yet, the state assumes you will drive at some point, so they make you live up to certain standards in order to get a driver's license...

Is that why people in NYC get drivers' licenses? Even tho they never have to own a car?

Change the subject often? Oh, right, it's you...so...yes..

Laughing....so Body stomps you with your OWN example. And suddenly your example is 'changing the topic'.

So apparently the sources that Sil is intent on ignoring...includes herself.

 

[Silhouette]

Laughing....so Body stomps you with your OWN example. And suddenly your example is 'changing the topic'.

So apparently the sources that Sil is intent on ignoring...includes herself.

Speaking of a body stomp... Do you approve of polygamy and incest marriages? And if not, why not? I guess you could use the old LGBT talking points "that they are bad for the children who are implicitly part of those marriages"...or has that narrative suddenly changed?

 

[Skylar]

Laughing....so Body stomps you with your OWN example. And suddenly your example is 'changing the topic'.

So apparently the sources that Sil is intent on ignoring...includes herself.

Speaking of a body stomp... Do you approve of polygamy and incest marriages? And if not, why not? I guess you could use the old LGBT talking points "that they are bad for the children who are implicitly part of those marriages"...or has that narrative suddenly changed?

Laughing....you're going off topic. As the OP mentions neither incest nor polygamy.

But hey, you never applied your standards to you anyway...insisting that your own example is 'off topic' if anyone else mentions it.

If you believe that incest and polygamy should be legalized, make your argument. I'm not making it for you.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage neither for nor about children.

Similar Paint-logic: , "a driver's license is neither for nor about operating cars on a roadway...."

There is no requirement to own a car in order to get a driver's license. Yet, the state assumes you will drive at some point, so they make you live up to certain standards in order to get a driver's license...

Is that why people in NYC get drivers' licenses? Even tho they never have to own a car?

Change the subject often? Oh, right, it's you...so...yes..

Meanwhile- Children have never had a voice in any marriage law.

Ever.

Just another Silhouette anti-gay rants.

 

[Syriusly]

Laughing....so Body stomps you with your OWN example. And suddenly your example is 'changing the topic'.

So apparently the sources that Sil is intent on ignoring...includes herself.

Speaking of a body stomp... Do you approve of polygamy and incest marriages? And if not, why not? I guess you could use the old LGBT talking points "that they are bad for the children who are implicitly part of those marriages"...or has that narrative suddenly changed?

Speaking of changing the subject.

Tell us why you think that gay marriage is worse for children than having a girls own father rape her?

 

[Syriusly]

When does 'LGBT' say anything about polygamy? I mean other than in your head?

I assume you support polygamous marriages- since you think children must be in families with a father and mother.....s

I have brought up polygamy and if it should be forced on the 50 states as well. First LGBTs here and elsewhere screamed foul that polygamy was illegal. Then it became decriminalized in Utah and so I brought it up again. Then LGBTs here and elsewhere screamed foul (before June's mistrial Opinion) that "polygamy is bad for children! Warren Jeffs...! They're a cult!.."...lumping all polygamists in with Warren Jeffs. And, all prior to June we heard nothing but from LGBTs about "how gay marriage has to be legitimized for the sake of children!".
And now suddenly LGBTs are saying "marriage is in no way about children"....Odd.

The only thing 'odd' is how you pull crap out of your ass.

No one was screaming foul about anything.
Polygamous marriage is just as illegal as it was a year ago- just as illegal as it was 50 years ago.

And happy gay couples are still marrying.

Gay marriage is as illegal as polygamy since "marriage equality"

Marriage is perfectly legal between couples regardless of their gender.

Polygamy is still illegal.

And you are still an idiot.

 

[Syriusly]

Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum (I urge you to visit the links posted and read the surveys because they are very important for each reader here to understand straight from the source).

If I were you I wouldn't want folks digging too deep into The Prince's Trust b/c it says almost nothing you claim it does. The fact that you continue to lie about it's findings should come as no shock to any of us.

Far from Silo's blatant lies, the Prince Trust study actually refutes her arguments.

As it cites mentoring programs as providing good same sex rolemodels. Obliterating the narrative that ONLY a mother or a father can provide sucha good same sex rolemodel.

So Sil ignores her own source. As there is nothing she won't ignore to cling to her little thumbsucker threads.

Silhouette lies about her own sources.

It takes a special kind of liar to cite a source- and then lie about what the citation says.

She does it with the Prince's Study- she does it with the paper by Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall- which she lies and calls a "Mayo Clinic Study"- besides lying about what the study says.

She has been caught lying so often it would be stupid to assume anything she says is true.