Teenager Who Has Been Dating Her Father For Two Years Reveals The Pair Are Planning To Get Married..

[danielpalos]

Since when can the several citizens in the several States, not be entitled to the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States? Maybe someone who has greater standing than myself, can ask the Judicature.

 

[Syriusly]

Do you suffer from brain damage?

Do you suffer from not having a clue or a Cause, and having Only fallacies as a result?

Since when can the several citizens in the several States, not be entitled to the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States?

You are not even making a complete thought.

If you don't understand the statement, how well can you understand the concept?

There is no statement. All you posted was an incomplete sentence.

It is only your understanding that is incomplete. You either understand the concept or "gist" of it, or you don't. Shills usually don't have a clue or a not for profit Cause.

Did you know that diversion is also usually considered a fallacy?

Daniel calls anyone who dares point out that his posts are incomprehensible a 'shill'

 

[Syriusly]

Do you suffer from not having a clue or a Cause, and having Only fallacies as a result?

Since when can the several citizens in the several States, not be entitled to the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States?

Since now, since you are not considering all parties with a vested interest to the marriage contract and license:

In walk the rights of children to marriage....
.

And you oppose giving the children of gay parents the right to have married parents.

"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?"

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Do you suffer from not having a clue or a Cause, and having Only fallacies as a result?

Since when can the several citizens in the several States, not be entitled to the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States?

Since now, since you are not considering all parties with a vested interest to the marriage contract and license:

In walk the rights of children to marriage....
.

And you oppose giving the children of gay parents the right to have married parents.

"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?"

No.

 

[Syriusly]

Do you suffer from not having a clue or a Cause, and having Only fallacies as a result?

Since when can the several citizens in the several States, not be entitled to the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States?

Since now, since you are not considering all parties with a vested interest to the marriage contract and license:

In walk the rights of children to marriage....
.

And you oppose giving the children of gay parents the right to have married parents.

"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?"

No.

Well unfortunately for you- that was the comment by Justice Kennedy......

 

[Silhouette]

Since when can the several citizens in the several States, not be entitled to the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States? Maybe someone who has greater standing than myself, can ask the Judicature.

I agree. Children in every state who cannot vote to affect their destiny should have the privelege and right to both a mother and father in the marriage contract (their formative environment) recognized in every state whose populace determines what is best for their wards...

 

[Syriusly]

Since when can the several citizens in the several States, not be entitled to the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States? Maybe someone who has greater standing than myself, can ask the Judicature.

I agree. Children in every state who cannot vote to affect their destiny should have the privelege and right to both a mother and father

So- we force single mom's to get married- since children apparently have a right to both a mother and father?

And we force families to adopt those who are in foster care and are legally available for adoption?

And we force families to take children from foster homes whose own mother and father have abandoned them?

IF children have this 'right' to both a mother and father, then the state would logically be able to take legal action to enforce those 'rights'.

Of course none of that has anything to do with gay marriage.

Preventing gay marriage only ensures that the children of gay couples do not have married parents.

Nothing else.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Do you suffer from not having a clue or a Cause, and having Only fallacies as a result?

Since when can the several citizens in the several States, not be entitled to the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States?

Since now, since you are not considering all parties with a vested interest to the marriage contract and license:

In walk the rights of children to marriage....
.

And you oppose giving the children of gay parents the right to have married parents.

"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?"

No.

Well unfortunately for you- that was the comment by Justice Kennedy......

Why would that be unfortunate? I would disagree with it no matter who said it.

 

[danielpalos]

Since when can the several citizens in the several States, not be entitled to the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States? Maybe someone who has greater standing than myself, can ask the Judicature.

I agree. Children in every state who cannot vote to affect their destiny should have the privelege and right to both a mother and father in the marriage contract (their formative environment) recognized in every state whose populace determines what is best for their wards...

Well, if I new I "had" to be born, why not to wealthy parents? Having recourse to wealth simplifies capitalism for good capitalists. Socialism is not that good, yet.

There is no legal justification for denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the several citizens in the several States, merely due to the subjective value of morals.

 

[danielpalos]

Since when can the several citizens in the several States, not be entitled to the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States? Maybe someone who has greater standing than myself, can ask the Judicature.

I agree. Children in every state who cannot vote to affect their destiny should have the privelege and right to both a mother and father in the marriage contract (their formative environment) recognized in every state whose populace determines what is best for their wards...

In any Case, this is an appeal to ignorance since the ancient Spartans, did not believe that was the case; why do those of your point of view believe they are right, with their current lack of reason regarding social spending on ounces of prevention, to obviate social spending on pounds of "cure". Poverty also affects children as much or more during their formative years. When is the right going to solve that problem, instead of merely paying for a War on Poverty for around a generation?

 

[Silhouette]

So- we force single mom's to get married- since children apparently have a right to both a mother and father?

And we force families to adopt those who are in foster care and are legally available for adoption?

And we force families to take children from foster homes whose own mother and father have abandoned them?

IF children have this 'right' to both a mother and father, then the state would logically be able to take legal action to enforce those 'rights'.

Of course none of that has anything to do with gay marriage.

Preventing gay marriage only ensures that the children of gay couples do not have married parents.

Nothing else.

No, the state's involvement in children's wellbeing is limited to incentivizing marriage as a lure to provide that best environment for kids. In fact you just made me think of another way "alternative lifestyle marriage" harms children directly, potently and insidiously..

...if alternative lifestyles that we know statistically will not be best for kids (remember, wolves can raise kids too) are getting access to the perks of marriage, then the brass ring is adulterized to the point of where there is no more reason for states to be involved in marriage anymore.

The only reason states were involved in the first place was to incentivize the best environment for kids. If they are to be forced now to incentivize inferior environments for kids, I move that all perks of marriage be completely dissoved for everyone. Maybe that Senator was right after all..

 

[bripat9643]

So- we force single mom's to get married- since children apparently have a right to both a mother and father?

And we force families to adopt those who are in foster care and are legally available for adoption?

And we force families to take children from foster homes whose own mother and father have abandoned them?

IF children have this 'right' to both a mother and father, then the state would logically be able to take legal action to enforce those 'rights'.

Of course none of that has anything to do with gay marriage.

Preventing gay marriage only ensures that the children of gay couples do not have married parents.

Nothing else.

No, the state's involvement in children's wellbeing is limited to incentivizing marriage as a lure to provide that best environment for kids. In fact you just made me think of another way "alternative lifestyle marriage" harms children directly, potently and insidiously..

...if alternative lifestyles that we know statistically will not be best for kids (remember, wolves can raise kids too) are getting access to the perks of marriage, then the brass ring is adulterized to the point of where there is no more reason for states to be involved in marriage anymore.

The only reason states were involved in the first place was to incentivize the best environment for kids. If they are to be forced now to incentivize inferior environments for kids, I move that all perks of marriage be completely dissoved for everyone. Maybe that Senator was right after all..

BINGO!

 

[Syriusly]

So- we force single mom's to get married- since children apparently have a right to both a mother and father?

And we force families to adopt those who are in foster care and are legally available for adoption?

And we force families to take children from foster homes whose own mother and father have abandoned them?

IF children have this 'right' to both a mother and father, then the state would logically be able to take legal action to enforce those 'rights'.

Of course none of that has anything to do with gay marriage.

Preventing gay marriage only ensures that the children of gay couples do not have married parents.

Nothing else.

No, the state's involvement in children's wellbeing is limited to incentivizing marriage as a lure..

So children don't actually have a right to two parents of opposite genders as you claimed.

If children had that right then the State would be responsible for enforcing that right.

 

[danielpalos]

So- we force single mom's to get married- since children apparently have a right to both a mother and father?

And we force families to adopt those who are in foster care and are legally available for adoption?

And we force families to take children from foster homes whose own mother and father have abandoned them?

IF children have this 'right' to both a mother and father, then the state would logically be able to take legal action to enforce those 'rights'.

Of course none of that has anything to do with gay marriage.

Preventing gay marriage only ensures that the children of gay couples do not have married parents.

Nothing else.

No, the state's involvement in children's wellbeing is limited to incentivizing marriage as a lure to provide that best environment for kids. In fact you just made me think of another way "alternative lifestyle marriage" harms children directly, potently and insidiously..

...if alternative lifestyles that we know statistically will not be best for kids (remember, wolves can raise kids too) are getting access to the perks of marriage, then the brass ring is adulterized to the point of where there is no more reason for states to be involved in marriage anymore.

The only reason states were involved in the first place was to incentivize the best environment for kids. If they are to be forced now to incentivize inferior environments for kids, I move that all perks of marriage be completely dissoved for everyone. Maybe that Senator was right after all..

Hypothetically and in that alternative, my special pleading can still make more sense than your special pleading; consider a public policy initiative called the promotion of "Spartans" as citizens of our republic. Whereby, any offspring of the citizenry must be raised, for the good of the republic in Order to best provide for the common Defense and the general welfare.

 

[Silhouette]

No, the state's involvement in children's wellbeing is limited to incentivizing marriage as a lure to provide that best environment for kids. In fact you just made me think of another way "alternative lifestyle marriage" harms children directly, potently and insidiously..

...if alternative lifestyles that we know statistically will not be best for kids (remember, wolves can raise kids too) are getting access to the perks of marriage, then the brass ring is adulterized to the point of where there is no more reason for states to be involved in marriage anymore.

The only reason states were involved in the first place was to incentivize the best environment for kids. If they are to be forced now to incentivize inferior environments for kids, I move that all perks of marriage be completely dissoved for everyone. Maybe that Senator was right after all..

Hypothetically and in that alternative, my special pleading can still make more sense than your special pleading; consider a public policy initiative called the promotion of "Spartans" as citizens of our republic. Whereby, any offspring of the citizenry must be raised, for the good of the republic in Order to best provide for the common Defense and the general welfare.

Yeah, ridiculous. A fatal flaw in your premise is that this isn't Sparta. And that we have scores of laws long in place and celebrated by all (until this case goes before SCOTUS) that protect children's wellbeing..

There is no argument (even you have to admit) that the best formative environment for kids is one where both a father and a mother are present in their formative years; and that's because kids come in both genders. Duh.

So for a state to incentivize "less than the best" causes these things:

1. No clear boundary (in the name of "equality" don't forget..) on what "less than the best" can mean and

2. No more reason for states to lose money incentivizing marriage at all if that act cannot get them the return in more stable adult citizens raised in the best formative environment.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Now will the mods enter and tell St. Mike to knock it off too? Or do they like theater and role-players?

 

[danielpalos]

No, the state's involvement in children's wellbeing is limited to incentivizing marriage as a lure to provide that best environment for kids. In fact you just made me think of another way "alternative lifestyle marriage" harms children directly, potently and insidiously..

...if alternative lifestyles that we know statistically will not be best for kids (remember, wolves can raise kids too) are getting access to the perks of marriage, then the brass ring is adulterized to the point of where there is no more reason for states to be involved in marriage anymore.

The only reason states were involved in the first place was to incentivize the best environment for kids. If they are to be forced now to incentivize inferior environments for kids, I move that all perks of marriage be completely dissoved for everyone. Maybe that Senator was right after all..

Hypothetically and in that alternative, my special pleading can still make more sense than your special pleading; consider a public policy initiative called the promotion of "Spartans" as citizens of our republic. Whereby, any offspring of the citizenry must be raised, for the good of the republic in Order to best provide for the common Defense and the general welfare.

Yeah, ridiculous. A fatal flaw in your premise is that this isn't Sparta. And that we have scores of laws long in place and celebrated by all (until this case goes before SCOTUS) that protect children's wellbeing..

There is no argument (even you have to admit) that the best formative environment for kids is one where both a father and a mother are present in their formative years; and that's because kids come in both genders. Duh.

So for a state to incentivize "less than the best" causes these things:

1. No clear boundary (in the name of "equality" don't forget..) on what "less than the best" can mean and

2. No more reason for states to lose money incentivizing marriage at all if that act cannot get them the return in more stable adult citizens raised in the best formative environment.

Exactly; and this also isn't any "divine" commune of Heaven, or Cuba. What makes you and the Judicature think they are right and the Spartans were wrong?

 

[Jarlaxle]

A father and daughter are planning to get married, and she says they are gonna try to have kids. She is of consenting age. What's your thoughts?

Until gay marriage is made unlawful, I would tell them, go for it.

Gay marriage is here to stay little man. You should move to Jesusland instead.

Sir, are you gay?

No...he is just batshit insane.