States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Under your boneheaded theory, the majority of the voters may pass laws or amend state constitutions to take away rights of the minority. If our country was a pure democracy, you would be correct. But, we all know you are wrong. We are not a nation of men (pure democracy) ... we are a nation of laws (constitutional republic) ... and the supreme law of the land is that a state may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor equal protection under the law.

All right. Fair enough. So would you say that there are zero exceptions to that rule? That every single living breathing person in the US has those same protections from tyrannical rule? That not one single person should have to bear the yoke of oppression of their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Would that right extend to US children? or are they your singular exception to protection from the tyranny of laws? A boy's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges his father to stay in his married home. Statisically-speaking (refer to Prince's Trust in OP). A girl's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges her mother to stay in her married home. But they don't count, right? Then suddenly "tyranny of law overrules an oppressed class of US citizens".

Hypocrite. It is apparent that the only laws you promote "in the moment" are the ones that advance the LGBT cult into the fold of mainstream society...everything be damned..including children's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as their unquestioned right (see federal CAPTA guidelines) to protection from harm by society when society has reason to believe a situation would harm them.

Could you at least use a survey that uses US children when you are discussing US constitutional protections?

One thing you continuously fail to grasp : society does not seem to agree with you about the harm caused by children raised by gay couples.

Aside from the stupidity and blatant dishonesty exuded by the OP, we should not loose sight of another aspect of this. The care of and effects on children who are in the care of gay people is not even the right conversation to be having in relation to same sex marriage.

It is estimated that there are up to 2 million kids in the care of a gay person or persons in the US. There come to be with gay parents or parent figures for a variety of reasons and it mostly not due to same sex marriage. So it is utterly ridiculous and pointless to use the issue of children and child care to discredit same sex marriage

I asked the perpetrator of this OP is she would also advocate for a prohibition on allowing gay people to have children, and even the removal of those who are currently in the care-if the effects of gay parenting on children is so horrendous. Of course , she does not have the intestinal fortitude or honesty to answer that.

In addition it was pointed out to her that children benefit when the parent is allowed to marry, but she can't even acknowledge that much. She clearly hates gay people more than she cares about children and is willing to punish the children to accomplish her goal. My only remaining question is whether or not she actually believes her own horseshit, or a willful liar

 

[Silhouette]

Hey asshole. You don't know what I would advocate for. All you have is what I am plainly saying below. I could just as accurately claim that you would advocate for buggering little boys you've now got a loophole to adopt... Calm your jets. Trust me, in the name of equal-speech and assumptions "progressive patriot"...you don't want to go there..

Under your boneheaded theory, the majority of the voters may pass laws or amend state constitutions to take away rights of the minority. If our country was a pure democracy, you would be correct. But, we all know you are wrong. We are not a nation of men (pure democracy) ... we are a nation of laws (constitutional republic) ... and the supreme law of the land is that a state may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor equal protection under the law.

All right. Fair enough. So would you say that there are zero exceptions to that rule? That every single living breathing person in the US has those same protections from tyrannical rule? That not one single person should have to bear the yoke of oppression of their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Would that right extend to US children? or are they your singular exception to protection from the tyranny of laws? A boy's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges his father to stay in his married home. Statisically-speaking (refer to Prince's Trust in OP). A girl's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges her mother to stay in her married home. But they don't count, right? Then suddenly "tyranny of law overrules an oppressed class of US citizens".

Hypocrite. It is apparent that the only laws you promote "in the moment" are the ones that advance the LGBT cult into the fold of mainstream society...everything be damned..including children's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as their unquestioned right (see federal CAPTA guidelines) to protection from harm by society when society has reason to believe a situation would harm them.

Could you at least use a survey that uses US children when you are discussing US constitutional protections?

One thing you continuously fail to grasp : society does not seem to agree with you about the harm caused by children raised by gay couples.

No. I don't need to. Because what children need with regards to mothers and fathers doesn't change from society to society. Boys need a father. Girls need a mother. It is true in the US as much as it is in Britain.

I understand though that it pisses you off that your Rainbow-owned APA can't have not-funded such a survey or "CQR-ed" it out of existence by the APA's new "emphasis on consensus and using feelings over raw data"...but the survey exists in spite of that and it says quite clearly what it says. Your "Ministry of What's Best For Kids" couldn't make it go away.

 

[Syriusly]

Under your boneheaded theory, the majority of the voters may pass laws or amend state constitutions to take away rights of the minority. If our country was a pure democracy, you would be correct. But, we all know you are wrong. We are not a nation of men (pure democracy) ... we are a nation of laws (constitutional republic) ... and the supreme law of the land is that a state may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor equal protection under the law.

Would that right extend to US children? or are they your singular exception to protection from the tyranny of laws? A boy's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges his father to stay in his married home. Statisically-speaking (refer to Prince's Trust in OP). A girl's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges her mother to stay in her married home. But they don't count, right? Then suddenly "tyranny of law overrules an oppressed class of US citizens"..

IF children had the RIGHT to have a home with his biological mother and father- then society would be forced to require biological mothers and fathers to stay together.

But children do not have a right to a home with his biological mother and father- instead- his legal parents have the obligation to care for their legal children.

The Prince's Study of course has nothing to do with marriage, or homes with both parents in them.

Just you lying again.

 

[Syriusly]

Under your boneheaded theory, the majority of the voters may pass laws or amend state constitutions to take away rights of the minority. If our country was a pure democracy, you would be correct. But, we all know you are wrong. We are not a nation of men (pure democracy) ... we are a nation of laws (constitutional republic) ... and the supreme law of the land is that a state may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor equal protection under the law.

All right. Fair enough. So would you say that there are zero exceptions to that rule? That every single living breathing person in the US has those same protections from tyrannical rule? That not one single person should have to bear the yoke of oppression of their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Would that right extend to US children? or are they your singular exception to protection from the tyranny of laws? A boy's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges his father to stay in his married home. Statisically-speaking (refer to Prince's Trust in OP). A girl's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges her mother to stay in her married home. But they don't count, right? Then suddenly "tyranny of law overrules an oppressed class of US citizens".

Hypocrite. It is apparent that the only laws you promote "in the moment" are the ones that advance the LGBT cult into the fold of mainstream society...everything be damned..including children's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as their unquestioned right (see federal CAPTA guidelines) to protection from harm by society when society has reason to believe a situation would harm them.

You didn't answer any of his questions- I am glad to repeat them- i will even number them so you can respond to the numbered question

1. Do you advocate the removal by force of law of all children currently in the care of gay individuals and couples so that they can be placed with a "mother and a father"?
2. Do you have any credible evidence in the form of peer reviewed research that shows that children who do not have both a biological mother and a father become stunted and dysfunctional adults?
3. How, exactly would prohibiting same sex marriage ensure that all-or most children will have both a mother and a father?

Can you actually answer his questions?

I doubt it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Under your boneheaded theory, the majority of the voters may pass laws or amend state constitutions to take away rights of the minority. If our country was a pure democracy, you would be correct. But, we all know you are wrong. We are not a nation of men (pure democracy) ... we are a nation of laws (constitutional republic) ... and the supreme law of the land is that a state may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor equal protection under the law.

All right. Fair enough. So would you say that there are zero exceptions to that rule? That every single living breathing person in the US has those same protections from tyrannical rule? That not one single person should have to bear the yoke of oppression of their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Would that right extend to US children? or are they your singular exception to protection from the tyranny of laws? A boy's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges his father to stay in his married home. Statisically-speaking (refer to Prince's Trust in OP). A girl's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges her mother to stay in her married home. But they don't count, right? Then suddenly "tyranny of law overrules an oppressed class of US citizens".

Hypocrite. It is apparent that the only laws you promote "in the moment" are the ones that advance the LGBT cult into the fold of mainstream society...everything be damned..including children's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as their unquestioned right (see federal CAPTA guidelines) to protection from harm by society when society has reason to believe a situation would harm them.

You didn't answer any of his questions- I am glad to repeat them- i will even number them so you can respond to the numbered question

1. Do you advocate the removal by force of law of all children currently in the care of gay individuals and couples so that they can be placed with a "mother and a father"?
2. Do you have any credible evidence in the form of peer reviewed research that shows that children who do not have both a biological mother and a father become stunted and dysfunctional adults?
3. How, exactly would prohibiting same sex marriage ensure that all-or most children will have both a mother and a father?

Can you actually answer his questions?

I doubt it.

Thank you! And I would ad this question: Do you think that if same sex marriage were to be abolished, that there would-magically- no longer be any children in the care of gay people?

 

[Syriusly]

Under your boneheaded theory, the majority of the voters may pass laws or amend state constitutions to take away rights of the minority. If our country was a pure democracy, you would be correct. But, we all know you are wrong. We are not a nation of men (pure democracy) ... we are a nation of laws (constitutional republic) ... and the supreme law of the land is that a state may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor equal protection under the law.

All right. Fair enough. So would you say that there are zero exceptions to that rule? That every single living breathing person in the US has those same protections from tyrannical rule? That not one single person should have to bear the yoke of oppression of their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Would that right extend to US children? or are they your singular exception to protection from the tyranny of laws? A boy's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges his father to stay in his married home. Statisically-speaking (refer to Prince's Trust in OP). A girl's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges her mother to stay in her married home. But they don't count, right? Then suddenly "tyranny of law overrules an oppressed class of US citizens".

Hypocrite. It is apparent that the only laws you promote "in the moment" are the ones that advance the LGBT cult into the fold of mainstream society...everything be damned..including children's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as their unquestioned right (see federal CAPTA guidelines) to protection from harm by society when society has reason to believe a situation would harm them.

You didn't answer any of his questions- I am glad to repeat them- i will even number them so you can respond to the numbered question

1. Do you advocate the removal by force of law of all children currently in the care of gay individuals and couples so that they can be placed with a "mother and a father"?
2. Do you have any credible evidence in the form of peer reviewed research that shows that children who do not have both a biological mother and a father become stunted and dysfunctional adults?
3. How, exactly would prohibiting same sex marriage ensure that all-or most children will have both a mother and a father?

Can you actually answer his questions?

I doubt it.

Thank you! And I would ad this question: Do you think that if same sex marriage were to be abolished, that there would-magically- no longer be any children in the care of gay people?

Well Silhouette never wants to answer any such questions.

Because banning gay marriage does not benefit a single child- it only harms children.

Yet Silhouette wants to ban gay marriage.

So what Silhouette wants is to cause harm to children.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Hey asshole. You don't know what I would advocate for. All you have is what I am plainly saying below. I could just as accurately claim that you would advocate for buggering little boys you've now got a loophole to adopt... Calm your jets. Trust me, in the name of equal-speech and assumptions "progressive patriot"...you don't want to go there..

Under your boneheaded theory, the majority of the voters may pass laws or amend state constitutions to take away rights of the minority. If our country was a pure democracy, you would be correct. But, we all know you are wrong. We are not a nation of men (pure democracy) ... we are a nation of laws (constitutional republic) ... and the supreme law of the land is that a state may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor equal protection under the law.

All right. Fair enough. So would you say that there are zero exceptions to that rule? That every single living breathing person in the US has those same protections from tyrannical rule? That not one single person should have to bear the yoke of oppression of their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Would that right extend to US children? or are they your singular exception to protection from the tyranny of laws? A boy's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges his father to stay in his married home. Statisically-speaking (refer to Prince's Trust in OP). A girl's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges her mother to stay in her married home. But they don't count, right? Then suddenly "tyranny of law overrules an oppressed class of US citizens".

Hypocrite. It is apparent that the only laws you promote "in the moment" are the ones that advance the LGBT cult into the fold of mainstream society...everything be damned..including children's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as their unquestioned right (see federal CAPTA guidelines) to protection from harm by society when society has reason to believe a situation would harm them.

Could you at least use a survey that uses US children when you are discussing US constitutional protections?

One thing you continuously fail to grasp : society does not seem to agree with you about the harm caused by children raised by gay couples.

No. I don't need to. Because what children need with regards to mothers and fathers doesn't change from society to society. Boys need a father. Girls need a mother. It is true in the US as much as it is in Britain.

I understand though that it pisses you off that your Rainbow-owned APA can't have not-funded such a survey or "CQR-ed" it out of existence by the APA's new "emphasis on consensus and using feelings over raw data"...but the survey exists in spite of that and it says quite clearly what it says. Your "Ministry of What's Best For Kids" couldn't make it go away.

Here is you challenge and final chance to gain some credibility (Ha Ha) 1. Read these studies. 2. Refute them if you can. 3. Present actual data of your own that actually supports your position 3. If you cant complete either 1 or 2, shut the hell up:

In a project launched last month, a team at Columbia Law School has collected on one website the abstracts of all peer-reviewed studies that have addressed this question since 1980 so that anyone can examine the research directly, and not rely on talking heads or potential groupthink. Even when we might not agree with a study’s conclusions—with how a researcher interpreted the data—we still included it if it went through peer review and was relevant to the topic at hand. Peer review, of course, isn’t perfect, but it’s one of the best ways the world has to ensure that research conclusions are at least the product of good-faith efforts to get at the truth.

The Columbia project is the largest collection of peer-reviewed scholarship on gay parenting to date. What does it show? We found 71 studies concluding that kids with gay parents fare no worse than others and only four concluding that they had problems. But those four studies all suffered from the same gross limitation: The children with gay parents were lumped in with children of family breakup, a cohort known to face higher risks linked to the trauma of family dissolution.


Even the notion that you try to put forth that there are no good studies is wrong...the studies, while not perfect do give us a very good idea on the conclusions and that is that gay homes are not better nor worse.

Here is a link to all the studies

http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/


I should add, the consensus that kids in gay homes do just as well as kids in straight homes is recognized

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting

Consensus

The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,[3][4][5] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[4] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9] Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union.[5][6][87][92] Statistics show that home and childcare activities in homosexual households are more evenly split between the two rather than having specific gender roles,[93] and that there were no differences in the interests and hobbies of children with homosexual or heterosexual parents.[94]

Here is more. Let me know when you have had enough. And please spare us any horseshit about how they are all corrupt and doing the bidding of those nasty gay people. Prove it or get the hell out of here.

The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families is the world’s largest attempt to study how children raised by same-sex couples compare to children raised by heterosexual couples. According to a preliminary report on the study of 500 children across the country of Australia, these young people are not only thriving, but also have higher rates of family cohesion than other families:

An interim report found there was no statistical difference between children of same-sex couples and the rest of the population on indicators including self-esteem, emotional behaviour and the amount of time spent with parents.

However, children of same-sex couples scored higher than the national average for overall health and family cohesion, measuring how well a family gets along. World’s Largest Study Of Same-Sex Parenting Finds That Children Are Thriving

Children raised by same-sex couples appear to do as well as those raised by parents of both sexes, suggests an international research review that challenges the long-ingrained belief that children need male and female parents for healthy adjustment.

"It's more about the quality of the parenting than the gender of the parents," says Judith Stacey of New York University, co-author of the comprehensive review. It will be published Friday in the Journal of Marriage and Family. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-parentgender21_ST_N.htm

A sampling of recent studies of same-sex parenting: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Under your boneheaded theory, the majority of the voters may pass laws or amend state constitutions to take away rights of the minority. If our country was a pure democracy, you would be correct. But, we all know you are wrong. We are not a nation of men (pure democracy) ... we are a nation of laws (constitutional republic) ... and the supreme law of the land is that a state may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor equal protection under the law.

All right. Fair enough. So would you say that there are zero exceptions to that rule? That every single living breathing person in the US has those same protections from tyrannical rule? That not one single person should have to bear the yoke of oppression of their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Would that right extend to US children? or are they your singular exception to protection from the tyranny of laws? A boy's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges his father to stay in his married home. Statisically-speaking (refer to Prince's Trust in OP). A girl's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges her mother to stay in her married home. But they don't count, right? Then suddenly "tyranny of law overrules an oppressed class of US citizens".

Hypocrite. It is apparent that the only laws you promote "in the moment" are the ones that advance the LGBT cult into the fold of mainstream society...everything be damned..including children's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as their unquestioned right (see federal CAPTA guidelines) to protection from harm by society when society has reason to believe a situation would harm them.

You didn't answer any of his questions- I am glad to repeat them- i will even number them so you can respond to the numbered question

1. Do you advocate the removal by force of law of all children currently in the care of gay individuals and couples so that they can be placed with a "mother and a father"?
2. Do you have any credible evidence in the form of peer reviewed research that shows that children who do not have both a biological mother and a father become stunted and dysfunctional adults?
3. How, exactly would prohibiting same sex marriage ensure that all-or most children will have both a mother and a father?

Can you actually answer his questions?

I doubt it.

Thank you! And I would ad this question: Do you think that if same sex marriage were to be abolished, that there would-magically- no longer be any children in the care of gay people?

Well Silhouette never wants to answer any such questions.

Because banning gay marriage does not benefit a single child- it only harms children.

Yet Silhouette wants to ban gay marriage.

So what Silhouette wants is to cause harm to children.

At the very lease, she doesn't care if they are collateral damage as the result of bigotry and stupidity

 

[Debra K]

Under your boneheaded theory, the majority of the voters may pass laws or amend state constitutions to take away rights of the minority. If our country was a pure democracy, you would be correct. But, we all know you are wrong. We are not a nation of men (pure democracy) ... we are a nation of laws (constitutional republic) ... and the supreme law of the land is that a state may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor equal protection under the law.

You proclaim, "States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage". That's the same boneheaded attitude that bigots had to evade the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. They were wrong. No matter how ingeniously or ingenuously people tried to evade the Court's interpretation of Constitution, they failed.

All right. Fair enough. So would you say that there are zero exceptions to that rule? That every single living breathing person in the US has those same protections from tyrannical rule? That not one single person should have to bear the yoke of oppression of their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

What the hell are you talking about? There are no "exceptions" to the due process and equal protection clauses. Read it for yourself. Do you find a exception clause? if so, where?

A state law or policy, on its face or as applied, either violates or does not violate a person's rights secured by the constitution.

Would that right extend to US children? or are they your singular exception to protection from the tyranny of laws? A boy's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges his father to stay in his married home. Statisically-speaking (refer to Prince's Trust in OP). A girl's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges her mother to stay in her married home. But they don't count, right? Then suddenly "tyranny of law overrules an oppressed class of US citizens".

Hypocrite. It is apparent that the only laws you promote "in the moment" are the ones that advance the LGBT cult into the fold of mainstream society...everything be damned..including children's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as their unquestioned right (see federal CAPTA guidelines) to protection from harm by society when society has reason to believe a situation would harm them.

If a state law or policy violates a child's rights secured by the constitution, then the child may have a claim against the state.

You have not shown how a child's rights have been violated if his parents are allowed to get married. Same gender couples have children. The evidence presented proved to the courts that children are harmed when the state deprives their parents of the right to marry.

States already have laws that protect children from neglect and abuse.

In the past, the children of mixed-race parents may have suffered "the slings and arrows of a disapproving society". But societal disapproval did not stop the Supreme Court from ruling that people of different races had the right to marry each other.

Children are being raised by same gender parents. The only thing causing them harm is the rocks you're throwing at their parents. Stop throwing rocks and your alleged concerns for the children will disappear.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Under your boneheaded theory, the majority of the voters may pass laws or amend state constitutions to take away rights of the minority. If our country was a pure democracy, you would be correct. But, we all know you are wrong. We are not a nation of men (pure democracy) ... we are a nation of laws (constitutional republic) ... and the supreme law of the land is that a state may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor equal protection under the law.

You proclaim, "States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage". That's the same boneheaded attitude that bigots had to evade the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. They were wrong. No matter how ingeniously or ingenuously people tried to evade the Court's interpretation of Constitution, they failed.

All right. Fair enough. So would you say that there are zero exceptions to that rule? That every single living breathing person in the US has those same protections from tyrannical rule? That not one single person should have to bear the yoke of oppression of their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

What the hell are you talking about? There are no "exceptions" to the due process and equal protection clauses. Read it for yourself. Do you find a exception clause? if so, where?

A state law or policy, on its face or as applied, either violates or does not violate a person's rights secured by the constitution.

Would that right extend to US children? or are they your singular exception to protection from the tyranny of laws? A boy's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges his father to stay in his married home. Statisically-speaking (refer to Prince's Trust in OP). A girl's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges her mother to stay in her married home. But they don't count, right? Then suddenly "tyranny of law overrules an oppressed class of US citizens".

Hypocrite. It is apparent that the only laws you promote "in the moment" are the ones that advance the LGBT cult into the fold of mainstream society...everything be damned..including children's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as their unquestioned right (see federal CAPTA guidelines) to protection from harm by society when society has reason to believe a situation would harm them.

If a state law or policy violates a child's rights secured by the constitution, then the child may have a claim against the state.

You have not shown how a child's rights have been violated if his parents are allowed to get married. Same gender couples have children. The evidence presented proved to the courts that children are harmed when the state deprives their parents of the right to marry.

States already have laws that protect children from neglect and abuse.

In the past, the children of mixed-race parents may have suffered "the slings and arrows of a disapproving society". But societal disapproval did not stop the Supreme Court from ruling that people of different races had the right to marry each other.

Children are being raised by same gender parents. The only thing causing them harm is the rocks you're throwing at their parents. Stop throwing rocks and your alleged concerns for the children will disappear.

I find this kind of equine excrement really hard to believe. Can anyone actually be that hateful and stupid?

 

[Debra K]

Under your boneheaded theory, the majority of the voters may pass laws or amend state constitutions to take away rights of the minority. If our country was a pure democracy, you would be correct. But, we all know you are wrong. We are not a nation of men (pure democracy) ... we are a nation of laws (constitutional republic) ... and the supreme law of the land is that a state may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor equal protection under the law.

All right. Fair enough. So would you say that there are zero exceptions to that rule? That every single living breathing person in the US has those same protections from tyrannical rule? That not one single person should have to bear the yoke of oppression of their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Would that right extend to US children? or are they your singular exception to protection from the tyranny of laws? A boy's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges his father to stay in his married home. Statisically-speaking (refer to Prince's Trust in OP). A girl's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges her mother to stay in her married home. But they don't count, right? Then suddenly "tyranny of law overrules an oppressed class of US citizens".

Hypocrite. It is apparent that the only laws you promote "in the moment" are the ones that advance the LGBT cult into the fold of mainstream society...everything be damned..including children's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as their unquestioned right (see federal CAPTA guidelines) to protection from harm by society when society has reason to believe a situation would harm them.

Could you at least use a survey that uses US children when you are discussing US constitutional protections?

One thing you continuously fail to grasp : society does not seem to agree with you about the harm caused by children raised by gay couples.

Perhaps harm is caused to children who are raised by poor parents, but the law doesn't prevent poor people from getting married or becoming parents ....

Perhaps harm is caused to children who are raised by alcoholics and drug addicts, but the law doesn't prevent alcoholics and drug addicts from getting married or becoming parents ....

Perhaps harm is caused to children who are raised by unreformed criminals, but the law doesn't prevent criminals from getting married or becoming parents ....

Perhaps harm is caused to children who are raised by people who own guns and keep loaded weapons in their homes, but the law doesn't prevent gun-owners from getting married or becoming parents ....

Perhaps harm is caused to children who are raised by perpetrators of domestic violence, but the law doesn't prevent abusers from getting married or becoming parents ....

There are existing laws that protect children, and the state has the power to remove neglected or abused children from their homes.

 

[Debra K]

I find this kind of equine excrement really hard to believe. Can anyone actually be that hateful and stupid?

The facts and the law mean nothing to bigots. The bigots (haters) are consumed with hate. Some bigots are smart and try to conjure up ingenious ways to get around the law. Most have proven themselves to be utterly stupid (which is evident the moment they open their mouths or place fingers to keyboard). The haters in this particular matter, however, can't "gerrymander" their way around Obergefell no matter how "smart" they think they are.

 

[SwimExpert]

Valid legal argument in a nutshell: Proaction to protect the psychological health of children; a state's future fledged citizens.

All it would take is an authority figure, or even a lone voter who wishes their vote to have counted on any marriage statute limiting who may marry in their state to make this challenge go straight to the US Supreme Court.

From a conversation started here: Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court | Page 183 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away

Got one better for you. Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".....But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control. And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment....Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK? And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS. They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution. Only Congress can.

you either never bothered to read the Obergefell decision, and if you did, you are obviously lacking the intellectual and analytical acumen to have understood it. Otherwise, you would understand that the court did not create a new protected class. While they could have gone that route, the majority, instead applied heightened scrutiny to the bans on same sex marriage and found that the rights of gays to marry was being violated as a matter of equal protection under the law.
.

There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution. Just as there is no "right to drive" in the US Constitution. Both are priveleges extended to qualified persons by each state. And each state has the jurisdiction over who qualifies.

Blind people cannot drive. They lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for other people on the road. People who want to marry the same gender cannot operate a marriage. By that I mean they lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for children: who share the marriage contract by implication. "Gay marriage" cannot provide both a mother and father vital to children...which is the reason states are involved in incentivizing marriage at all. Otherwise it's a net loss for the states handing out what is now just random tax breaks for adult people.

Children, completely left out of the conversation illegally by the SCOTUS, grow up psychologically stunted and become burdens upon the state statistically when they lack either a mother or father in their home: Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum So, because of the findings of that very large and comprehensive survey, states have a material and valid interest in regulating who may marry within their boundaries...

You better hope that states don't have a legally valid way to deny gay marriage. Seeing as no mentally healthy man would put his penis inside you, gay marriage and beastiality are your only hopes of not dying lonely.

Thank you for that thoughtful, helpful and articulate contribution to an important topic.

It's right on target for a Sil-thread.

 

[Silhouette]

There are existing laws that protect children, and the state has the power to remove neglected or abused children from their homes.

The OP takes that one step further. It says that because of the way child-protective laws are written, if a state (or anyone else for that mater) has reason to suspect a child might head into (not actually currently be in) a situation that could end in their neglect, psychological harm or physical abuse, the state is mandated to head that off before it even happens.

So, if a state knows that a child growing up in a home without a father or a mother is harmful to them, and it cannot house all the children of single parents in orphanges like they sometimes used to do, AT THE VERY LEAST the state must be able to put up an incentive program (tax breaks for marrieds) that entices a father and mother to be in the home for as many children as possible. Requiring a state to incentivize "gay marriage" is the same as requiring a state to incentivize child neglect.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There are existing laws that protect children, and the state has the power to remove neglected or abused children from their homes.

The OP takes that one step further. It says that because of the way child-protective laws are written, if a state (or anyone else for that mater) has reason to suspect a child might head into (not actually currently be in) a situation that could end in their neglect, psychological harm or physical abuse, the state is mandated to head that off before it even happens.

So, if a state knows that a child growing up in a home without a father or a mother is harmful to them, and it cannot house all the children of single parents in orphanges like they sometimes used to do, AT THE VERY LEAST the state must be able to put up an incentive program (tax breaks for marrieds) that entices a father and mother to be in the home for as many children as possible. Requiring a state to incentivize "gay marriage" is the same as requiring a state to incentivize child neglect.

The number of LGBT-headed families continues to grow, as does our need to secure legal equality, fairness and respect for LGBT parents and to provide environments where all children are welcome, supported and loved. HRC provides current resources that address the many potential paths to parenthood as well as tools for issues facing LGBT-headed families or LGBT youth.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Learn the basics of the surrogacy process including considerations for choosing a surrogate and legal issues.

 

[Skylar]

What children?

You don't give a damn about children.

You want to deny the children of gay couples having married parents. .

5 posts in a row. Are you trying to spam something into oblivion again?

There is no such thing as "children of gays". There are children caught up in the gay lifestyle, but they do not belong to both gay people. There is always a missing vital parent. Children need both a mother and a father in marriage. The states need children to have this in marriage so their tax breaks are well spent, not handed out to situations gauranteed to produce stunted and dysfunctional adults.

The missing parent isn't vital, obviously, and with a gay couple at least you have two adults to help support and raise a child...

"Single Parents By the Numbers
According to Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2009, a report released by the U.S. Census Bureau every two years (and most recently in December 2011), there are approximately 13.7 million single parents in the United States today, and those parents are responsible for raising 22 million children. This number represents approximately 26% of children under 21 in the U.S. today."
The Most Important Statistics About Single Parents

And of course, there's no valid argument for denying marriage to same sex couples....as denying same sex parents marriage doesn't fix anything that Sil is complaining about.

It only hurts children. And doesn't help a single one. Which Sil has already admitted, insisting that it would help only hypothetical children.

Not living ones.

 

[Skylar]

Learn the basics of the surrogacy process including considerations for choosing a surrogate and legal issues.

Ms. Pseudo-legal Gibberish already demonstrated how void her understanding of the law is by arguing that surrogacy was 'child trafficking'.

Her arguments have nothing to do with the law. Which is why her predictions are so perfectly wrong.

 

[Silhouette]

Cute pictures. Now post ones with two lesbians holding a son and two gay men holding a daughter. Then we'll get busy talking about the Prince's Trust survey and all those young adults reporting that a lack of the same gender role model in their homes left them with a sense of not belonging, and suicidal &/or prone to alcoholism, drug abuse and indigency...

Here's an example of what I'm talking about, from this thread: Boy Drugged By Lesbian "Parents" To Be A Girl | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The boy is probably going along with this so he can finally experience a sense of mattering in a functioning adult world.. Now THERE'S a happy, well-adjusted son of lesbians..

 

[Skylar]

Cute pictures. Now post ones with two lesbians holding a son and two gay men holding a daughter. Then we'll get busy talking about the Prince's Trust survey and all those young adults reporting that a lack of the same gender role model in their homes left them with a sense of not belonging, and suicidal &/or prone to alcoholism, drug abuse and indigency...

More gibberish. The Prince Trust study, by your own admission, doesn't measure the effects of any kind of parenting. It never even mentions mothers and fathers. Or gays. Or gay parenting.

But good same sex role models. With every example offered of no good same sex rolemodel being a child of a SINGLE parent. With the Prince Trust study citing sources outside the family as being good same sex role models.

You're again offering us imaginary, delusional bullshit in yet another thumb sucker thread. Where you know you're full of shit. We know you're full of shit. And you know we know you're full of shit.

But you keep repeating this nonsense to yourself as a form of self soothing.