Same-Sex Marriage Judge Finds That a Child Has Neither a Need Nor a Right to a Mother

Anyone who thinks a 4 or 5 year old kid seeing his two 'daddies' or 'mommies' kiss each other and snuggle with each other on the couch, isn't gonna be confused and tripped-out, is a moron.

Religion aside, there is a biological drive in the VAST majority of people that would have them pick mates of the opposite sex. This drive is already in place even in children.

Children raised by gay parents have been thrust into a F'ed up situation out of their control, and if you asked them, probably their desires.

"It would be better a giant millstone was bound around their necks and they be tossed into the sea than to cause one of these little ones to stumble."- Jesus of Nazareth

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by ironfalcon

 

The only thing related to same sex marriage that can crudely be linked in the constitution is not there. It is in the declaration of independence which claims people have a right to freedom, prosperity, and the pursuit of happiness. Meaning that people have a right to be happy how they please if it does not violate freedom or prosperity.

So pretty much there's nothing in the constitution about it. You have a choice to how you want to live, and people have to change that by their talking, not law. You can't force a life style onto anybody if it violates those three things in the Dec of Ind.

We dont make laws from the declaration if independence. Nobody should even cite the declaration of independence when it comes to law. Because the constitution is the law of the land. Not the declaration.

Originally posted by Romans 10:9
"It would be better a giant millstone was bound around their necks and they be tossed into the sea than to cause one of these little ones to stumble."- Jesus of Nazareth

I wasn't going to post here until I read your post. BTW, * for you.

People just don't get it in these "modern" times do they. The Holy Bible has become somewhat of a book of archaic writings to a majority of people today. The judge in question to this thread is biased and using his influence to promote an act that's been taboo for thousands of years and destroy innocent lives in the process.

Many signs have been given in these latter days to point to the truths of the Holy Bible yet people will refuse to believe. They've been given the chance to choose. When the time comes, they will have to pay for their trangressions.

Children are a blessing not a right. Those who harm them will be dealt with later and they won't like it.

Why are there so many postings regarding same-sex?? It's like some attention intensive group needs to have public group therapy and make their civil right to unnatural sex the center of attention. Can't we just put all their concerns in folder with a special group logo i.e. toilet seat. There, if you feel your fallen nature needs to out-gas, you can find others with scatological issues.

Originally posted by Romans 10:9
Anyone who thinks a 4 or 5 year old kid seeing his two 'daddies' or 'mommies' kiss each other and snuggle with each other on the couch, isn't gonna be confused and tripped-out, is a moron.

You're adult paranoia is showing. Kids understand love and nurturing.

They are only freak out about something like this - - when adults like you give them reason to.

Having a father and a mother seems like more of a survival of the species issue than a gay issue to me.

But to a gay judge, might be difficult to separate the two issues ...

Originally posted by centurion1211
Having a father and a mother seems like more of a survival of the species issue than a gay issue to me.

But to a gay judge, might be difficult to separate the two issues ...

He is a judge first - - conservative nominated by Reagan.

Probably should check his record.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Annee]

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by ironfalcon

 

If you were a judge, would you rule that every
child has both a need and a right for a mother?

If I were a judge, I wouldn't touch the issue. I would assert that my position as a judge conveyed no authority to rule either way on such a matter, and refuse the case.

And I would do it loudly in hopes that it would set a precedent.

and its attitudes like yours that are whats wrong with our judicial system.

Most of the time - the squeaky wheel gets the oil. But with judges willing to stand up and do their job like this guy, thats not the case.

YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT to a mother or a father.

If you did - we wouldn't have orphanages, now, would we?

Originally posted by Snarf

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by ironfalcon

 

If you were a judge, would you rule that every
child has both a need and a right for a mother?

If I were a judge, I wouldn't touch the issue. I would assert that my position as a judge conveyed no authority to rule either way on such a matter, and refuse the case.

And I would do it loudly in hopes that it would set a precedent.

YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT to a mother or a father.

If you did - we wouldn't have orphanages, now, would we?

And with your kind of attitudes, perhaps you'd be in favor of doing away with children being raised by their biological parents altogether.

Yes, perhaps you also believe we've "evolved" way past the need for that sort of silliness. All it takes is a village, right?

If you read the book "Brave New World", would you prefer their methods?

[edit on 8/10/2010 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by centurion1211
Having a father and a mother seems like more of a survival of the species issue than a gay issue to me.

But to a gay judge, might be difficult to separate the two issues ...

He is a judge first - - conservative nominated by Reagan.

Probably should check his record.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Annee]

Hey, nice to see you here on yet another gay issues thread.

As for the gay judge, he should have known that being gay would create this kind of scrutiny and recused himself.

As for you and some others here, let me point out yet another double-standard you are operating under.

On another thread people are trying to connect Beck and his planet of the apes statement in attempt to prove racism.

But on this thread - according to you - there can absolutely be no connection between a gay judge and his ruling in favor of gay rights.

To an unbiased person looking at both, the later example is not so much of a logical stretch as the former, now is it?

Originally posted by centurion1211

Hey, nice to see you here on yet another gay issues thread.

Surprise! You are here too. Duh!

I follow 50 threads - - according to you they are all gay related.

What I follow are my interests. One happens to be Equal Rights. What about you?

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Annee]

Originally posted by centurion1211

As for the gay judge, he should have known that being gay would create this kind of scrutiny and recused himself.

And replaced himself with what?

An Off Planet being?

While understanding that people have a diversity of opinions and that it is a good thing we have these differences, as they are the fuel of creativity and innovation...

Could anyone arguing againsts this actually walk into an orphanage or a foster home and tell some poor kid who has nothing that they will have to continue to suffer in a broken system because a gay couple, of either gender, just isn't a viable option?

I'm a very heterosexual male who has some pretty conservative leanings and I just cannot see punishing kids that way.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by centurion1211

Hey, nice to see you here on yet another gay issues thread.

Surprise! You are here too. Duh!

I follow 50 threads - - according to you they are all gay related.

What I follow are my interests. One happens to be Equal Rights. What about you?

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Annee]

Politics (ya think?), science, history-related ...

Originally posted by centurion1211
On another thread people are trying to connect Beck and his planet of the apes statement in attempt to prove racism.

But on this thread - according to you - there can absolutely be no connection between a gay judge and his ruling in favor of gay rights.

To an unbiased person looking at both, the later example is not so much of a logical stretch as the former, now is it?

So you admit this judge was not biased because of who he is or are you saying that Glen Beck is indeed a racist but what he says on his show is seperate?

sigmund freud was right about same sex people. These same people don't like his work because he speaks the truth.

Humanity is going down hill fast. this is why I sometimes hope Nibiru is true. Or should I say Red Star Kachina?

:shk:

Originally posted by centurion1211

Politics (ya think?), science, history-related ...

I was in a no moderator - no holds barred - political forum for 10 years. (not ATS)

Got bored with it. Just a bunch of finger pointing.

So, I guess since a gay judge couldn't take this case, a white judge can't take a case on affirmative action? Well, neither could a black judge. Or a female judge. Or ANY judge for that matter. Of course, don't let logic stand in the way of you're blatant homophobia, Jethro.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

I'm sympathetic to this stuff, but if a male grows up with two moms and say, a sister, he will be pretty fubar when he grows up.

reply to post by Violater1


you're right of course.
but come november, it wont matter which gobermint you vote in, both are corrupt and serve the same psychopathic masters.