Trump: Fine with same-sex marriage

[JoeB131]

I'll say that kids deserve both a father and mother from marriage anywhere, anytime...and without reservations. That's how courage and morality work. And given that about 95% of people agree with me...no problemo.

Yeah, except 50% of marriages end in divorce, and most kids aren't in a home wiht a mom and dad, so not so much.

A dad who is fucking his trophy wife and shows up on weekends isn't much of a dad.

 

[Silhouette]

I'll say that kids deserve both a father and mother from marriage anywhere, anytime...and without reservations. That's how courage and morality work. And given that about 95% of people agree with me...no problemo.

Yeah, except 50% of marriages end in divorce, and most kids aren't in a home wiht a mom and dad, so not so much.

A dad who is fucking his trophy wife and shows up on weekends isn't much of a dad.

So....then wolves should be allowed to marry?

See how you have no logic to your argument? Because part of something doesn't work sometimes, you don't take a wrecking ball to the foundation of the entire thing.

 

[JoeB131]

So....then wolves should be allowed to marry?

See how you have no logic to your argument? Because part of something doesn't work sometimes, you don't take a wrecking ball to the foundation of the entire thing.

Guy, why do you keep talking about Wolves?

The thing is, you have yet to prove to me that letting gays marry is taking a wrecking ball to anything.

 

[Silhouette]

So....then wolves should be allowed to marry?

See how you have no logic to your argument? Because part of something doesn't work sometimes, you don't take a wrecking ball to the foundation of the entire thing.

Guy, why do you keep talking about Wolves?

The thing is, you have yet to prove to me that letting gays marry is taking a wrecking ball to anything.

Except the main beneficiaries of marriage: children...for whom those benefits (mother and father contact) persist even after divorce. The wrecking ball was taken to the reason marriage exists and was created: to remedy the tragedy of children missing either a mother or father. Those separate and unique roles are vital to boys and girls; and cannot be replaced by wolves or two mothers or two fathers....

 

[JoeB131]

Except the main beneficiaries of marriage: children...for whom those benefits (mother and father contact) persist even after divorce. The wrecking ball was taken to the reason marriage exists and was created: to remedy the tragedy of children missing either a mother or father. Those separate and unique roles are vital to boys and girls; and cannot be replaced by wolves or two mothers or two fathers....

Not really. frankly, i knew a young lady who was the product of a divorce whose parents used her to get back at each other after the marriage was over, and then learned how to manipulate them. When I lost track of her, her life was already kind of messed up.

On the other hand, i know children of gays who turned out, just fine. So "dad" was a butch chick who wore a suit.

 

[Silhouette]

Not really. frankly, i knew a young lady who was the product of a divorce whose parents used her to get back at each other after the marriage was over, and then learned how to manipulate them. When I lost track of her, her life was already kind of messed up.

On the other hand, i know children of gays who turned out, just fine. So "dad" was a butch chick who wore a suit.

And there are children raised by wolves that do just fine. Just as their are children of single parents that seem to beat the odds. But that doesn't mean we make wolf-marriage legal; nor does it mean we make single parents have the perks of marriage. You see, marriage was created to remedy the odds that a child will not turn out right. We know the importance of both a mother and father; and that's why marriage was created. Anything less is inferior and does not benefit children. So it cannot be called "marriage". You can call it something else. But the law requires that the main beneficiaries of the marriage contract continue to receive those vital benefits from it. See the Infancy Doctrine for details.

And, exceptions do not set the Rule.

 

[JoeB131]

And there are children raised by wolves that do just fine.

There's never been a documented case of wolves raising a human child.

Just as their are children of single parents that seem to beat the odds. But that doesn't mean we make wolf-marriage legal; nor does it mean we make single parents have the perks of marriage. You see, marriage was created to remedy the odds that a child will not turn out right. We know the importance of both a mother and father; and that's why marriage was created. Anything less is inferior and does not benefit children. So it cannot be called "marriage". You can call it something else. But the law requires that the main beneficiaries of the marriage contract continue to receive those vital benefits from it. See the Infancy Doctrine for details.

Guy, no adult is going along with the whims of children dictating their lives.

It's why we don't let children vote.

Marriage was created because through most of human history WOMEN WERE CONSIDERED PROPERTY!!!! YOU DUMBFUCK!!!

Nobody gave a crap about children because you had an infant mortality rate of 50% up until the last century or so.

 

[Silhouette]

Guy, no adult is going along with the whims of children dictating their lives...It's why we don't let children vote...Marriage was created because through most of human history WOMEN WERE CONSIDERED PROPERTY!!!! YOU DUMBFUCK!!!

Nobody gave a crap about children because you had an infant mortality rate of 50% up until the last century or so.

^^ That simply isn't true. Marriage was invented to remedy fatherless (usually) or motherless children so that their care would not become a burden to the tribe; providing the vital role model of mother to girls and father to boys. We figured out over a thousand years ago that if children lack these irreplaceable mentors in their lives, they falter as functioning adult members of the tribe.

And, you forgot that we do think very much about children legally...so much so that the Infancy Doctrine was created to protect children from manipulative adults dictating onerous terms of contracts to childrens' demise. So you got that one exactly ass backwards. "Gay marriage" says "No mother or father for life for you little ones!" And as such, it's contract is invalid per the Infancy Doctrine.

You would have to prove in a court of law beyond a shadow of doubt that marriage has absolutely no benefits as such to children. And you would be unable to do that. There is no replacement for a father. There is no replacement for a mother. Marriage's meaning in overwhelming abundance is "to provide a missing mother or father...or to establish both as parents for children we anticipate to arrive". It was a remedy for single parenthood. Two women don't suffice. Two men don't suffice. They are lacking irreplaceable roles.

 

[mdk]

And, you forgot that we do think very much about children legally...so much so that the Infancy Doctrine was created to protect children from manipulative adults dictating onerous terms of contracts to childrens' demise. So you got that one exactly ass backwards. "Gay marriage" says "No mother or father for life for you little ones!" And as such, it's contract is invalid per the Infancy Doctrine

The Infancy Doctrine has never been used to invalidate a contract between adults in this nation. Not once. You can pretend that doctrine invalidates gay marriages all you wish, but here in the real world, gays continue to marry and raise their families in every single state.

 

[JoeB131]

^^ That simply isn't true. Marriage was invented to remedy fatherless (usually) or motherless children so that their care would not become a burden to the tribe; providing the vital role model of mother to girls and father to boys. We figured out over a thousand years ago that if children lack these irreplaceable mentors in their lives, they falter as functioning adult members of the tribe.

Guy, have you read the biblical laws on marriage? The parts where women get stoned if another man knocks them up, or gets stoned if she didn't cry out when she was being raped? Or they stone her if she's not a virgin on her wedding night and her parents are expected to help?

Nothing about the best interest of kiddies or forcing men to take responsibility in there at all. Oh, wait, a guy could marry his rape victim if he paid her father 50 sheckels.

 

[Ted Frazier]

Good on him.

Trump says he's 'fine' with legalization of same-sex marriage

How do his fans feel about this?
.

Whatever Trump likes, his lover robots like.