Alabama SC orders judges to stop issuing homosexuals "marriage" licenses.

[Syriusly]

I support the right of adults who are of the same gender to marry.

You support calling people f*ggots- just like racists call people they don't approve of n*ggers.....and k*kes....and c*nts.....

You are the same.

I'm trying to figure out the racial aspect of calling someone a c*nt. Is there some racist insult I'm unaware of that looks just like the word with a u?

LOL....how about I revise that?

He supports calling people f*ggots- just like racists and misogynists call people they don't approve of n*ggers.....and k*kes....and c*nts.....

I call people what they are. In your case, you're a faggot lover.

I bet you've suck a few in your lifetime.

Bigots- you are all alike

You support calling people f*ggots- just like racists call people they don't approve of n*ggers.....and k*kes....and c*nts.....

Faggot lovers like you are all alike.

You've posted that same sentence many, many times. I bet you've suck that many dicks.

Bigots- you are all alike

You support calling people f*ggots- just like racists call people they don't approve of n*ggers.....and k*kes....and c*nts....

I believe I found a photo of you

 

[Syriusly]

Well I will leave you with that- Alabama passed a law which prohibited both.

Homosexuals have chosen to pursue actual marriage- and are succeeding.

The homo militia rejected civil unions long ago. Somebody didn't get the memo.

It was an experiment- but as Alabama showed- Conservatives rejected the concept of Civil Unions exactly as they do same gender marriage- since Civil Unions were being rejected- it made sense to pursue true marriage equality.

And its working.

The homo militia was never satisfied with the proposal of civil unions.

The homophobia stormtroopers were never going to allow Civil Unions- and its all working out better this way anyways.

We'll never know. You homos never gave it a chance.

So you think that the State of Alabama are all homosexuals?

And that the homosexuals of Alabama banned both gay civil unions and gay marriage?

Wow- you really are delusional.

 

[Syriusly]

Well I will leave you with that- Alabama passed a law which prohibited both.

Homosexuals have chosen to pursue actual marriage- and are succeeding.

The homo militia rejected civil unions long ago. Somebody didn't get the memo.

It was an experiment- but as Alabama showed- Conservatives rejected the concept of Civil Unions exactly as they do same gender marriage- since Civil Unions were being rejected- it made sense to pursue true marriage equality.

And its working.

The homo militia was never satisfied with the proposal of civil unions.

The homophobia stormtroopers were never going to allow Civil Unions- and its all working out better this way anyways.

LOL! So you're more comfortable with a civil war that ends without you and the survivors nestled back in the closet?

HEY! We finally agree on something.

Isn't common ground a wonderful thing?

I am used to bigots like yourself hoping for a civil war which will results in the murdering of your fellow Americans.

Not going to happen- no matter how much you hope that some bigots will do your dirty work.

 

[Syriusly]

It was an experiment- but as Alabama showed- Conservatives rejected the concept of Civil Unions exactly as they do same gender marriage- since Civil Unions were being rejected- it made sense to pursue true marriage equality.

And its working.

The homo militia was never satisfied with the proposal of civil unions.

The homophobia stormtroopers were never going to allow Civil Unions- and its all working out better this way anyways.

LOL! So you're more comfortable with a civil war that ends without you and the survivors nestled back in the closet?

HEY! We finally agree on something.

Isn't common ground a wonderful thing?

There's not going to be any civil war, Keyes. As you have to be willing to bleed to fight a war. And you and your ilk always pass the buck to someone else. Its always someone else that has to fight. Someone else that has to bleed.

Which is why you'll always be typing about a civil war rather than fighting it.

Some of the most patriotic conservatives are combat veterans, including myself.

When the hell did you ever serve anything higher than yourself? Don't even THINK of telling me that conservatives don't know how to fight and die for something. You metrosexual freaks won't ever be HALF the real men that we conservatives are. If I got in a fight with one of you people, I wouldn't even punch you like a man, I'd slap you like a little bitch, that's how little respect I have for your "ilk".

No 'patriotic conservatives' call for an American civil war- by definition they are 'treasonous conservatives'

The pathetic homophobic pos who call for others to kill Americans because they are against homosexuals are just that pathetic pos- since you are not calling for a civil war- then you are not one of them.

 

[Syriusly]

Why? Why should anyone be fighting for something that is not exactly equal to marriage?

Frankly, I agree with them- not with you- and their argument has been a winning argument- while yours is untested, and in my opinion, incorrect.

A civil union, is a contract, just as is a marriage, and as long as they are contracted equally, they are equal. The issue is akin to taking a purchase contract and calling it a marriage; which it is not. A marriage by traditional, and set legal definition is "A contract between a man and a woman". There is no need to label a purchase contract a marriage, and there is no reason to label a civil union a marriage.

Well I will leave you with that- Alabama passed a law which prohibited both.

Homosexuals have chosen to pursue actual marriage- and are succeeding.

The homo militia rejected civil unions long ago. Somebody didn't get the memo.

It was an experiment- but as Alabama showed- Conservatives rejected the concept of Civil Unions exactly as they do same gender marriage- since Civil Unions were being rejected- it made sense to pursue true marriage equality.

And its working.

It is only working in establishing a fiction and allowing YOUR SCOTUS to establish further it's fictional jurisdiction. Was the civil union case ever brought before YOUR SCOTUS? If so, what case was it?

What you call 'fiction' is reality.

Alabama rejected both civil unions and marriage- the case before the court is about marriage- and the Federal judge found once again that Alabama's laws were unconstitutional.

 

[James Everett]

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Virginia was at that time denying the equal rights based on race.

And between Windsor v. US (which cited Loving V. Virginia specifically) and Romer v Evans, the Supreme Court cited 4 separate race based cases when describing why the rights of gays can't be violated.

You insist no such cases are relevant. The USSC obviously disagrees, citing them at least 4 times.

Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you citing yourself?
[/QUO

SKYLAR. You asked.....
"Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you citing yourself?"
Well, I would reply that because YOUR SCOTUS is simply the result of poison fruit, and an illegal act, aimed at ending the United States by consolidating them under a wholly national consolidated government.
Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation states....
"the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
Yet James Madison stated in a letter to Mr. Everett August 1830.........
"It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed. Nor was it formed by a majority of the people of the United States, as a single community, in the manner of a consolidated government. It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity; and formed consequently by the same authority which formed the state constitutions.”
Here we see the first evidence that YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution began via a violation of the law, an act of rebellion to the lawful authority of Article XIII, in that the changes or abandonment of the Articles was done as Madison stated ...
It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity;
The law stated in Article XIII that the State legislatures, NOT the people had to confirm any alteration in them.
Yet the 1787/1789 Begins with the wording "We the people" rather than We the State legislatures.
This was a violation making YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution established by an illegal act.
With the wording "We the people" that act alone made it a contract between the people then living, hence not binding on those yet to be born. One cannot force a contract upon someone yet to be in existence. A fathers contracted debts are paid from his estate and cannot be passed on to his children or grand children. The people of a community cannot contract to plant an apple orchard for their posterity and then those not yet to be born force to tend that orchard and eat the fruit thereof.
Now if the Articles had been "inviolably observed" then the Confederation/union of States would have remained as just that, A union of States.
Now in seeing that YOUR SCOTUS being part of a rebellious act, hence the result of poison fruit, and a politically charged body made up of indirect political party appointees, I see my opinion to be far more trustworthy and valuable than any opinion rendered by that body.
Now please explain how a woman and a woman not being allowed to call a contract between themselves a marriage contract when a marriage contract has always been, and is a contract between a man and a woman is somehow a privilege that is being denied them or that equal protection is being denied when there is no man party to that contract?
The two are NOT equal in that very definition of a marriage contract.
Or how a man and a man not being allowed to legally call a contract between themselves a marriage contract when a marriage contract is and has always been defined both historically and traditionally as a legal contract between a man and a woman.
You see, YOUR politically charge Kangaroo court has since its very illegal inception rendering opinions that are the result of the poison fruit that was an act of rebellion aimed at ending the union of States, via the consolidation of them into a single State under a wholly national government system.

 

[James Everett]

SKYLAR. You asked.....
"Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you citing yourself?"
Well, I would reply that because YOUR SCOTUS is simply the result of poison fruit, and an illegal act, aimed at ending the United States by consolidating them under a wholly national consolidated government.
Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation states....
"the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
Yet James Madison stated in a letter to Mr. Everett August 1830.........
"It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed. Nor was it formed by a majority of the people of the United States, as a single community, in the manner of a consolidated government. It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity; and formed consequently by the same authority which formed the state constitutions.”
Here we see the first evidence that YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution began via a violation of the law, an act of rebellion to the lawful authority of Article XIII, in that the changes or abandonment of the Articles was done as Madison stated ...
It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity;
The law stated in Article XIII that the State legislatures, NOT the people had to confirm any alteration in them.
Yet the 1787/1789 Begins with the wording "We the people" rather than We the State legislatures.
This was a violation making YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution established by an illegal act.
With the wording "We the people" that act alone made it a contract between the people then living, hence not binding on those yet to be born. One cannot force a contract upon someone yet to be in existence. A fathers contracted debts are paid from his estate and cannot be passed on to his children or grand children. The people of a community cannot contract to plant an apple orchard for their posterity and then those not yet to be born force to tend that orchard and eat the fruit thereof.
Now if the Articles had been "inviolably observed" then the Confederation/union of States would have remained as just that, A union of States.
Now in seeing that YOUR SCOTUS being part of a rebellious act, hence the result of poison fruit, and a politically charged body made up of indirect political party appointees, I see my opinion to be far more trustworthy and valuable than any opinion rendered by that body.
Now please explain how a woman and a woman not being allowed to call a contract between themselves a marriage contract when a marriage contract has always been, and is a contract between a man and a woman is somehow a privilege that is being denied them or that equal protection is being denied when there is no man party to that contract?
The two are NOT equal in that very definition of a marriage contract.
Or how a man and a man not being allowed to legally call a contract between themselves a marriage contract when a marriage contract is and has always been defined both historically and traditionally as a legal contract between a man and a woman.
You see, YOUR politically charge Kangaroo court has since its very illegal inception rendering opinions that are the result of the poison fruit that was an act of rebellion aimed at ending the union of States, via the consolidation of them into a single State under a wholly national government system.

 

[James Everett]

SKYLAR. You asked.....
"Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you citing yourself?"
Well, I would reply that because YOUR SCOTUS is simply the result of poison fruit, and an illegal act, aimed at ending the United States by consolidating them under a wholly national consolidated government.
Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation states....
"the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
Yet James Madison stated in a letter to Mr. Everett August 1830.........
"It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed. Nor was it formed by a majority of the people of the United States, as a single community, in the manner of a consolidated government. It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity; and formed consequently by the same authority which formed the state constitutions.”
Here we see the first evidence that YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution began via a violation of the law, an act of rebellion to the lawful authority of Article XIII, in that the changes or abandonment of the Articles was done as Madison stated ...
It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity;
The law stated in Article XIII that the State legislatures, NOT the people had to confirm any alteration in them.
Yet the 1787/1789 Begins with the wording "We the people" rather than We the State legislatures.
This was a violation making YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution established by an illegal act.
With the wording "We the people" that act alone made it a contract between the people then living, hence not binding on those yet to be born. One cannot force a contract upon someone yet to be in existence. A fathers contracted debts are paid from his estate and cannot be passed on to his children or grand children. The people of a community cannot contract to plant an apple orchard for their posterity and then those not yet to be born force to tend that orchard and eat the fruit thereof.
Now if the Articles had been "inviolably observed" then the Confederation/union of States would have remained as just that, A union of States.
Now in seeing that YOUR SCOTUS being part of a rebellious act, hence the result of poison fruit, and a politically charged body made up of indirect political party appointees, I see my opinion to be far more trustworthy and valuable than any opinion rendered by that body.
Now please explain how a woman and a woman not being allowed to call a contract between themselves a marriage contract when a marriage contract has always been, and is a contract between a man and a woman is somehow a privilege that is being denied them or that equal protection is being denied when there is no man party to that contract?
The two are NOT equal in that very definition of a marriage contract.
Or how a man and a man not being allowed to legally call a contract between themselves a marriage contract when a marriage contract is and has always been defined both historically and traditionally as a legal contract between a man and a woman.
You see, YOUR politically charge Kangaroo court has since its very illegal inception rendering opinions that are the result of the poison fruit that was an act of rebellion aimed at ending the union of States, via the consolidation of them into a single State under a wholly national government system.

SKYLAR,
Again, a real violation of YOUR fourteenth amendment under an interpretation such as you advocate, is a woman being denied the privilege that men hold in that they are forced to cover their chest in public, while men are being granted the privilege to bare their chest for all to see.
Yet society recognises the physical as well as biological difference between a man, and a woman. I hope that this fight will be next, just before the polygamist and the incestuous arguments take place under your fourteenth amendment. I am all for women being granted the equal privilege of going topless in public, other than my wife and daughters.

 

[Silhouette]

...Now please explain how a woman and a woman not being allowed to call a contract between themselves a marriage contract when a marriage contract has always been, and is a contract between a man and a woman is somehow a privilege that is being denied them or that equal protection is being denied when there is no man party to that contract?
The two are NOT equal in that very definition of a marriage contract.
Or how a man and a man not being allowed to legally call a contract between themselves a marriage contract when a marriage contract is and has always been defined both historically and traditionally as a legal contract between a man and a woman.
You see, YOUR politically charge Kangaroo court has since its very illegal inception rendering opinions that are the result of the poison fruit that was an act of rebellion aimed at ending the union of States, via the consolidation of them into a single State under a wholly national government system.

The issue at hand isn't same-sex marriage. What is at hand is actually redefining the word "marriage". Correct. Two Justices while that question of redefinition is pending yet to be Heard, presided over gay weddings. Their act, the looming of the fed in expressed approval of that redefinition, has caused them to legally have to recuse themselves from the upcoming Hearing. The US Supreme Court Found in 2009 that if any hint of bias is displayed or could be suspected reasonably from an objective person that a judge might be playing favorites, that judge/justice has to recuse him/herself. Since both Justices Kagan and Ginsburg presided over gay weddings publicly and without reservation, there is no person on the face of the earth that would believe they have not already made up their minds about a federal redaction of the word "marriage" taking place.

If those two Justices preside over the redacting of the word "marriage" and by doing so, force the states to be silenced in the debate over the brand new experiment of "gay marriage" using kids involved as lab rats, then you are correct. At that point we will formally have a dictatorship.

 

[James Everett]

...Now please explain how a woman and a woman not being allowed to call a contract between themselves a marriage contract when a marriage contract has always been, and is a contract between a man and a woman is somehow a privilege that is being denied them or that equal protection is being denied when there is no man party to that contract?
The two are NOT equal in that very definition of a marriage contract.
Or how a man and a man not being allowed to legally call a contract between themselves a marriage contract when a marriage contract is and has always been defined both historically and traditionally as a legal contract between a man and a woman.
You see, YOUR politically charge Kangaroo court has since its very illegal inception rendering opinions that are the result of the poison fruit that was an act of rebellion aimed at ending the union of States, via the consolidation of them into a single State under a wholly national government system.

The issue at hand isn't same-sex marriage. What is at hand is actually redefining the word "marriage". Correct. Two Justices while that question of redefinition is pending yet to be Heard, presided over gay weddings. Their act, the looming of the fed in expressed approval of that redefinition, has caused them to legally have to recuse themselves from the upcoming Hearing. The US Supreme Court Found in 2009 that if any hint of bias is displayed or could be suspected reasonably from an objective person that a judge might be playing favorites, that judge/justice has to recuse him/herself.

If those two Justices preside over the redacting of the word "marriage" and by doing so, force the states to be silenced in the debate over the brand new experiment of "gay marriage" using kids involved as lab rats, then you are correct. At that point we will formally have a dictatorship.

We already have a dictatorship in the form of consolidation under a national government system and the fiction that peopel accept that there is still a "Federal government".

 

[Conservative65]

Two fags or lesbians aren't having kids with each other. It simply isn't possible.

Further evidence of the fear, ignorance, and hate common to most on the right.

It's a biologically accurate statement you dumb son of a bitch.

It is a biologically irrelevant statement, and the response was accurate and appropriate.

Homosexuals are parenting children- some they give birth to, some they use surrogacy for, and some they adopt.

And regardless of how they have their children- they are the parents of those children.

No matter how much you dumb son's of bitches homophobic bigots want to deny it.

Now- how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

Since two males can't biologically have children, my statement is relevant. If you want to argue they can, someone should explain it to you you stupid fucking moron.

If you think two males or two females attracted to each other, you're as much of a freak as they are and always will be.

Having a different opinion doesn't make me a bigot. In this case, it makes me normal and retards like you deviant. Deny it all you want but two men being together isn't normal.

Having your opinions makes you a bigot- you wallow in your homophobia.

Homosexuals are parenting children- some they give birth to, some they use surrogacy for, and some they adopt.

You can keep you head sticked firmly up your posterior and pretend it isn't happening but it is

And regardless of how they have their children- they are the parents of those children.

No matter how much you dumb son's of bitches homophobic bigots want to deny it.


Now- how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

It helps the children by showing them that someone can't have two dads/two moms. That's not how it works.

 

[elektra]

And yet that is not what studies show. Studies show that there is no difference in outcomes between the children of heterosexuals and the children of gays and lesbians. Studies also show that gender is immaterial in parenting.

But now, the results of a new study challenge this very established line of thinking. The February 2010 issue of Journal of Marriage and Family shows that children without fathers suffer no disadvantage. It also shows that men don't offer a different type of necessary parenting skills as separate from a woman's.

Sociologist Timothy Biblarz of the USC College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences had this to say, "Significant policy decisions have been swayed by the misconception across party lines that children need both a mother and a father. Yet, there is almost no social science research to support this claim. One problem is that proponents of this view routinely ignore research on same-gender parents."

During the course of their analysis, the researchers found no suggestion that parenting abilities were specific to one gender or another, except when it comes to lactation. There seems to be no negative impact on a child who is motherless or fatherless. There are no associated psychological adjustment issues or problems with social success in children with parents of only one sex.​

Actually you have no studies, you have opinions by so called "experts", which look at other people's studies and than offer an opinion of said study.

Of course you did link to a survey, in which the author called a study in which the homosexuals "self-reported". Hardly verified scientific fact.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe the right is simply practicing being disingenuous, like usual; not even the right can claim that Spartan policies public were not more conducive to the common Defense and general welfare of that State--"Sparta was unique in ancient Greece for its social system and constitution, which completely focused on military training and excellence."

 

[Silhouette]

The issue isn't same-sex marriage anyway. I only recently realized this. The legal issue pending is the dismantling of the structural form of the word "marriage" (the union of a man and woman legally and sacredly for the expectation of raising of children in a home).

9 people cannot be trusted with redacting the hub of human society (the word marriage) that the whole of humanity into time unknown will have to bear the yoke of on their shoulders for better or worse.

The fact remains that this is a brand new concept, a social experiment. 9 people don't get to foist that onto children, much less the whole of humanity into time unknown. Children aren't lab rats. Of two lesbians, a son has no one to call Dad. Of two gay men a daughter has no one to call Mom. Anyone who reads that will honestly wince because in fact almost all the LGBTs also reading that will admit they had the opportunity of having a mom and dad in their home. They just want to subject new generations to the experiment they themselves did not undergo.

 

[danielpalos]

So, how does the right's current, and definitely not any form of respect or deference to Tradition (of Spartan policies public)

lead to any better citizens in the several States and that are more Able

to provide for the common Defense and general welfare of the United States,

through a deaconate, without individual and several agreement by each and every Person involved.

Or, does the right really really recant their alleged claim to the Usefulness of Capitalism?

 

[Silhouette]

By virtue fo the fact that citizens begin in childhood and how that child forms directly relates to the stability of any future for our Country.

A boy cannot call either of his two lesbian parents Dad. Neither can a girl call either of her two gay male parents Mom. We already have statistics on what happens mentally to a boy who has no father or a girl who has no mother: A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Skylar]

By virtue fo the fact that citizens begin in childhood and how that child forms directly relates to the stability of any future for our Country.

A boy cannot call either of his two lesbian parents Dad. Neither can a girl call either of her two gay male parents Mom. We already have statistics on what happens mentally to a boy who has no father or a girl who has no mother: A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Prince Trust Study you offer as evidence never mentions gay marriage. Nor same sex parenting, nor gays, nor measures any kind of parenting.

You hallucinated all of that. And your hallucinations aren't evidence.

 

[Seawytch]

And yet that is not what studies show. Studies show that there is no difference in outcomes between the children of heterosexuals and the children of gays and lesbians. Studies also show that gender is immaterial in parenting.

But now, the results of a new study challenge this very established line of thinking. The February 2010 issue of Journal of Marriage and Family shows that children without fathers suffer no disadvantage. It also shows that men don't offer a different type of necessary parenting skills as separate from a woman's.

Sociologist Timothy Biblarz of the USC College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences had this to say, "Significant policy decisions have been swayed by the misconception across party lines that children need both a mother and a father. Yet, there is almost no social science research to support this claim. One problem is that proponents of this view routinely ignore research on same-gender parents."

During the course of their analysis, the researchers found no suggestion that parenting abilities were specific to one gender or another, except when it comes to lactation. There seems to be no negative impact on a child who is motherless or fatherless. There are no associated psychological adjustment issues or problems with social success in children with parents of only one sex.​

Actually you have no studies, you have opinions by so called "experts", which look at other people's studies and than offer an opinion of said study.

Of course you did link to a survey, in which the author called a study in which the homosexuals "self-reported". Hardly verified scientific fact.

Your inability to find the studies despite the links given is not my problem. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing to support any of your anti gay claims. The children of gays and lesbians are not your problem. They're fine. Worry about your own kids or the kids of divorce. Ours our doing great.

 

[danielpalos]

By virtue fo the fact that citizens begin in childhood and how that child forms directly relates to the stability of any future for our Country.

A boy cannot call either of his two lesbian parents Dad. Neither can a girl call either of her two gay male parents Mom. We already have statistics on what happens mentally to a boy who has no father or a girl who has no mother: A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

At what age does the right consider appropriate, for children to sign consent agreements for being brought up with parents, regardless of their parent's, lifestyle choice?

Or, does right really really recant their alleged claim to Individual and several Consent for any Obligation of any Contract.

 

[James Everett]

Aft

By virtue fo the fact that citizens begin in childhood and how that child forms directly relates to the stability of any future for our Country.

A boy cannot call either of his two lesbian parents Dad. Neither can a girl call either of her two gay male parents Mom. We already have statistics on what happens mentally to a boy who has no father or a girl who has no mother: A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

At what age does the right consider appropriate, for children to sign consent agreements for being brought up with parents, regardless of their parent's, lifestyle choice?

Or, does right really really recant their alleged claim to Individual and several Consent for any Obligation of any Contract.

After reading several if your posts, it is clear that you are so politically charged that you could never move beyond your blind left v right to hold a proper perspective on any issue wherein you may perceive that an issue could be twisted into a left v right argument..