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

Originally posted by dbloch7986
reply to post by Annee

 

Then why get married at all?
2nd

Marriage is a contract to Produce Children. By this definition Gays cannot be married. They can have a civil union.
The state needs children (prior to our overpopulation) so it gets involved by giving incentives,tax breaks to married people. Such incentives may or may not be a good thing. Incentives clearly discriminate against single persons.

Gays cannot produce children in a normal way.

If no children are produced, marriage is an artificial construction of society and religion to promote order and control of people. Monogamous marriage prevents polygamy , which results in many men without wives who tend to be less motivated to support society.

The right to adopt is a separate issue. If children are viewed as property then anyone should be able to get one. IF children have rights than they should get the best situation for them , which is a mother and a father as close to their genetics.

But isnt it racist to expect a black baby to be raised by a black couple?
Yes it is but, its whats best for the child. Racism is good sometimes.

Originally posted by RRokkyy


Marriage is a contract to Produce Children.

You can have children without getting married.

You can get married without having children.

Your argument is invalid.

Originally posted by RRokkyy

Originally posted by dbloch7986
reply to post by Annee

 

Then why get married at all?
2nd

Marriage is a contract to Produce Children. By this definition Gays cannot be married. They can have a civil union.
The state needs children (prior to our overpopulation) so it gets involved by giving incentives,tax breaks to married people. Such incentives may or may not be a good thing. Incentives clearly discriminate against single persons.

Gays cannot produce children in a normal way.

If no children are produced, marriage is an artificial construction of society and religion to promote order and control of people. Monogamous marriage prevents polygamy , which results in many men without wives who tend to be less motivated to support society.

The right to adopt is a separate issue. If children are viewed as property then anyone should be able to get one. IF children have rights than they should get the best situation for them , which is a mother and a father as close to their genetics.

But isnt it racist to expect a black baby to be raised by a black couple?
Yes it is but, its whats best for the child. Racism is good sometimes.

We do not live in a time where Children are the legal reason for a contract between two people.

That is archaic drivel - selectively dug up for purpose to discriminate against a minority group.

Many gays have had children with women. Their "hardware" works just fine. They are perfectly able to reproduce.

There are plenty of married straights who by choice do not have children.

There are many privileges afforded to married partners. These privileges must be available to every person - - as Equal Rights.

Originally posted by zcflint05
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

 

Quit using homophobia. its just a word to demonize those you dont agree with....which you just proved. It should have been decided by a MIXTURE of judges. straight,gay,black,white,whatever.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by RRokkyy

Originally posted by dbloch7986
reply to post by Annee

 

Then why get married at all?
2nd

Marriage is a contract to Produce Children. By this definition Gays cannot be married. They can have a civil union.
The state needs children (prior to our overpopulation) so it gets involved by giving incentives,tax breaks to married people. Such incentives may or may not be a good thing. Incentives clearly discriminate against single persons.

Gays cannot produce children in a normal way.

If no children are produced, marriage is an artificial construction of society and religion to promote order and control of people. Monogamous marriage prevents polygamy , which results in many men without wives who tend to be less motivated to support society.

The right to adopt is a separate issue. If children are viewed as property then anyone should be able to get one. IF children have rights than they should get the best situation for them , which is a mother and a father as close to their genetics.

But isnt it racist to expect a black baby to be raised by a black couple?
Yes it is but, its whats best for the child. Racism is good sometimes.

We do not live in a time where Children are the legal reason for a contract between two people.

That is archaic drivel - selectively dug up for purpose to discriminate against a minority group.

Many gays have had children with women. Their "hardware" works just fine. They are perfectly able to reproduce.

There are plenty of married straights who by choice do not have children.

There are many privileges afforded to married partners. These privileges must be available to every person - - as Equal Rights.

Annee. how many times do i have to tell you. gays do have equal rights. im tired of you saying they dont.

Originally posted by Nofoolishness

Originally posted by zcflint05
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

 

Quit using homophobia. its just a word to demonize those you dont agree with....which you just proved. It should have been decided by a MIXTURE of judges. straight,gay,black,white,whatever.

I doubt you'd have the same sentiment if one judge had been chosen to pass Prop 8.

I also doubt you'd be protesting if this judge had supported Prop 8.

A group of judges? Is that normal procedure? Even with a group of judges - - the decision would have been the same.

Originally posted by Nofoolishness

Annee. how many times do i have to tell you. gays do have equal rights. im tired of you saying they dont.

Enough with the Pathetic "they can marry a woman".

That is NOT equal rights.

Adults marrying the partner of their choice is Equal Rights.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Nofoolishness

Annee. how many times do i have to tell you. gays do have equal rights. im tired of you saying they dont.

Enough with the Pathetic "they can marry a woman".

That is NOT equal rights.

Adults marrying the partner of their choice is Equal Rights.

That right does not exist annee. Im sorry but it does not. im tired of all you gay liberals and supporters making up rights that dont exist whenever it suites you. Im tired of it. There is no right to marriage period.

Get where im going with this?
no right to marriage.

If marriage is a right,fundamental one at that why is the government required to disolve marriage through divorce.

Annee your logic fails. Because

1.) There is no right to marriage. Therefore no one is being denied due process and no discrimination is being done.PERIOD.

2.) There is no right to marriage.

3.)There is no right to marriage.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

I'm calling BS on this lol...

if the state or fed say that they can rule in a marrige situation. let them its the people's right to change it and they have. I'm not that far out of school. while I was there the whole gay thing isn't bad any more its almost normal. we didn't hut fags down and beat them to death. so people going on about kids rights? I grew up with out a dad and had a mom and two sisters. I'm well off I have two kids and a wife. it had no ill effects on me. so quite using children to further your gay bashing.

Originally posted by Nofoolishness
im tired of all you gay liberals and supporters making up rights that dont exist whenever it suites you. Im tired of it. There is n

Yeah - - well we are winning - - and you are not.

Oh! There's that Liberal tag again. The "Catch All" bucket when a right winger doesn't agree.

No one is "making up rights" - - you are just Stuck in antiquated ideology.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Nofoolishness
im tired of all you gay liberals and supporters making up rights that dont exist whenever it suites you. Im tired of it. There is n

Yeah - - well we are winning - - and you are not.

Oh! There's that Liberal tag again. The "Catch All" bucket when a right winger doesn't agree.

No one is "making up rights" - - you are just Stuck in antiquated ideology.

Making up a right that does not exist such as right to marriage IS making up a right annee. There is no other definition.

So the constitution is a antiquated idealogy. so glad you think that way. Thanks for clearing that all up. It makes sense now.

one question annee.

Where is the right to marriage granted in the constitution? where is it even mentioned at all?

Maybe you believe the constitution is a 'living document' subject to change every few decades at a fews wish's.

This is why you FAIL annee. Because let me reiterate ONCE AGAIN.

1.) THERE IS NO RIGHT TO MARRIAGE.

2.) THERE IS NO RIGHT TO MARRIAGE.

3.)THERE IS NO RIGHT TO MARRIAGE!!!

Has that gotten through to you yet? Of course you could always prove me wrong and show me where marriage is in the bill of rights.

But then again i dont think you will do so because annee after all the constitution is antiquated idealogy. I know what you are now annee....a progressive. You did grow up during the whole 'free love' type mentality so maybe its too much for me to ask.....

Oh and before you call me a right-winger again i want you to know that it is not a insult. I wear that like a badge of honor. One because i know im getting you riled up. Number two is because im not even a right-winger. Im libertarian with conservative leanings.

I think government should be out of marriage period. But im tired of you making up rights that do not exist.

But like i said before prove me wrong.

also once again "how can marriage be a fundamental right when only government is required to disolve that 'right'."

Originally posted by Nofoolishness

Making up a right that does not exist such as right to marriage IS making up a right annee. There is no other definition.

There are some people that actually see "humans as humans".

Then there are people like you who are stuck in a antiquainted mindset - - manufactured by primitive man. With all his - fears - insecurities - prejudices - judgements - and ideologies.

It has been explained to you why gay marriage is constitutional. Equal is Equal.

Your useless repetition why it is not - - does not change the fact it is.

Originally posted by RRokkyy

Originally posted by dbloch7986
reply to post by Annee

 

Then why get married at all?
2nd

Marriage is a contract to Produce Children. By this definition Gays cannot be married. They can have a civil union.
The state needs children (prior to our overpopulation) so it gets involved by giving incentives,tax breaks to married people. Such incentives may or may not be a good thing. Incentives clearly discriminate against single persons.

Gays cannot produce children in a normal way.

If no children are produced, marriage is an artificial construction of society and religion to promote order and control of people. Monogamous marriage prevents polygamy , which results in many men without wives who tend to be less motivated to support society.

The right to adopt is a separate issue. If children are viewed as property then anyone should be able to get one. IF children have rights than they should get the best situation for them , which is a mother and a father as close to their genetics.

But isnt it racist to expect a black baby to be raised by a black couple?
Yes it is but, its whats best for the child. Racism is good sometimes.

So I take it you're also opposed to people who are sterile to get married?
Should we stop allowing sterile people from getting married since they can't produce children?
Or is it okay because they're hetero?

reply to post by ironfalcon

I can appreciate the right for Man/Woman to practice lifestyles of there choice although I totally disagree with those choices infringing on the rights of others, I see propaganda to perpetuate an agenda against gay parents whom could possibly provide an environment advantageous for the development of a child, with some judge presenting bias information in the US Judicial System which can create an outcome of epic proportion, A strategy very similar to what Heterosexuals practice against Homosexuals. Gay Parents need facts in there favor,and the right to LIFE, LIBERTY, AND, JUSTICE regardless to whom or what, but I believe this should be won by presenting absolute truth not senseless attacks that could leave Homosexuals the ones effected most by this decision. Tricknology!!

And people wonder why this country is turning into a cesspool...

wrong topic!! sorry. Too many Gay threads right now.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by hotbakedtater]

Originally posted by RRokkyy
Marriage is a contract to Produce Children. By this definition Gays cannot be married.

Maybe the internet is not a safe place for children? I do not want to be the one to tell you Santa is not real but since your mommy and daddy let you on here, I am going to go ahead and do it. Here is a little secret that grownups know.

Children are produced by sex, not marriage. In fact, NOT married people have children all the time.

So, how long after entering that contract must offspring be produced in order to not be in violation of said contract? What is the punishment for marrying and not reproducing? Where do you get this information? What color is the stork in your story?

Originally posted by CIPHER0019
Gay Parents need facts in there favor, and the right to LIFE, LIBERTY, AND, JUSTICE regardless to whom or what, but I believe this should be won by presenting absolute truth not senseless attacks that could leave Homosexuals the ones effected most by this decision. Tricknology!!

How do we get these Facts and Truths?

Actually many gays feared aggressive legal action on their behalf - - because they feared it would backfire.

But Honestly - - I think the time is NOW. The Ball is in Motion - - and needs to keep moving forward non-stop.

I am not even going to bother reading this thread because most likely I will become inflamed with SPITE and STUPIDITY. So, I will just say the OBVIOUS, what idiot judge would say that there is no need for a baby to have a mother and father. I will believe that when the first test tube baby is borned without a mother and father having sex ... o wait ... That sperm and egg still game from a Woman and a MAN . (PERIOD) the end ... no argument needed ... A BABY DOES NOT COME ABOUT WITH OUT A EGG AND A SPERM ...

Should I restate again ?

O and yes, I know there are orphans out there dying everyday .. Would I rather them die than to be raised by to LOVING CARING if you want to call them PARENTS (2 WOMAN or 2 MEN) ... Ummm ... I dunno ... Wish that were never an issue either one the 2 men or 2 women or the STARVING BABY, Maybe we should try and fix the starving child problem then .... we wouldn't have that question in the first place.