Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
. There you go.... All that ridiculous interpretation of law or making up new laws to accommodate a specific group, but meanwhile it all is being done at the peril of another group and/or multiple groups.Gays and lesbians certainly have a right to legal recognition of their marriages.
.
The legality of their "marriages" is in question because of the false premise I mentioned in my last post AND the fact that children had implicit enjoyments to the marriage contract (both mother and father) that were stripped from them without representation, consent, and outside the parameters of infants and contract law.
Nope. The legal issues were settled in Obergefell. And there is no law nor court ruling that recognizes children as any party to the marriage of their parents. Not 'implied', not 'explicit', not 'third party beneficiaries'.
You made that up. And you making up pseudo-legal gibberish has no effect on the actual law in the slightest.
As the Obergefell ruling made clear when it found the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. Killing your silly argument yet again. All of which you know....but really hope we don't.
As you know from New York vs Ferber, even if everyone on earth agreed that gays have a Constitutional coverage for their aberrant sex behaviors "marrying" in the Constitution, they may not enjoy that (nonexistent) right if it harms children either physically or psychologically...
Ferber never even mentions marriage. Nor finds that same sex marriage harms children in anyway.
Remember......you're just making up pseudo-legal nonsense. And it has no effect on any law.
Oh, and we're still waiting for you to show us the link where John Hopkins 'formerly' denounced sex change operations. Its been how many days now?
......and still nothing.
. There you go.... All that ridiculous interpretation of law or making up new laws to accommodate a specific group, but meanwhile it all is being done at the peril of another group and/or multiple groups.Gays and lesbians certainly have a right to legal recognition of their marriages.
.
The legality of their "marriages" is in question because of the false premise I mentioned in my last post AND the fact that children had implicit enjoyments to the marriage contract (both mother and father) that were stripped from them without representation, consent, and outside the parameters of infants and contract law.
Nope. The legal issues were settled in Obergefell. And there is no law nor court ruling that recognizes children as any party to the marriage of their parents. Not 'implied', not 'explicit', not 'third party beneficiaries'.
You made that up. And you making up pseudo-legal gibberish has no effect on the actual law in the slightest.
As the Obergefell ruling made clear when it found the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. Killing your silly argument yet again. All of which you know....but really hope we don't.
As you know from New York vs Ferber, even if everyone on earth agreed that gays have a Constitutional coverage for their aberrant sex behaviors "marrying" in the Constitution, they may not enjoy that (nonexistent) right if it harms children either physically or psychologically...
Ferber never even mentions marriage. Nor finds that same sex marriage harms children in anyway.
Remember......you're just making up pseudo-legal nonsense. And it has no effect on any law.
Oh, and we're still waiting for you to show us the link where John Hopkins 'formerly' denounced sex change operations. Its been how many days now?
......and still nothing.
That should be "formally'" not "formerly."
From HOPKINS MEDICAL NEWS, Winter 1999:That should be "formally'" not "formerly."
Given that John Hopkins didn't 'formerly' or 'formally' denounce sex change procedures, its equally wrong either way.
They just will denie and distract until the end of their time, so I guess you keep at it in hopes that in the exchange people will learn or enforce the truth in which you speak.Not playing typo roundabout with you Skylar. Read post #325
Or addressing the fact that you flat out lied about what Johns Hopkins said either.Not playing typo roundabout with you Skylar. Read post #325
Not playing typo roundabout with you Skylar. Read post #325
Alright you say on and on that it was not Johns Hopkins that said it, but how about addressing the content being talked about for once.
From 1999 to present, there have been no medical advancements that make a person any more "male" that was born female or any more "female" that was born male. The same reality applies today as then: PURE INSANITY DEFINED: which is the refusal to accept reality on its own terms.
From HOPKINS MEDICAL NEWS, Winter 1999:
*************
JHMN: Sexual Healing
The Hopkins sex clinic got started back in 1971, when Schmidt, who was treating a couple of patients grappling with sexual problems, consulted with psychoanalyst Jon Meyer, M.D., and other colleagues specializing in classical Freudian analysis. The group agreed that while analysis was useful, it didn’t help resolve sex problems. At just about the same moment, Masters and Johnson’s landmark research put them on the covers of Time and Newsweek, and the onset of the sexual revolution in the late ’60s sparked a wave of activism. Thus was born the Sexual Behaviors Consultation Unit.
Soon after that low-key beginning, the unit found itself in the midst of a national brouhaha over one of the field’s most controversial topics—gender reassignment surgery. Hopkins’ involvement with the procedure dated to 1960, when surgeons removed both breasts from a woman who wanted to become male. Then, during the ’70s, John Money, Ph.D., now an emeritus faculty member, developed an international reputation for his pioneering studies identifying the condition of transsexualism. A Hopkins committee began to screen applicants for gender reassignment surgery, and the unit began seeing candidates through the lengthy preparation process.
Controversy over sex-change surgery at Hopkins raged, both in the media and inside the institution. “This was taking place at a very conservative place and in a highly charged atmosphere,” Schmidt recalls. “It’s pretty rough surgery; some people consider it mutilating. And, of course, the scientific side of it is pretty damn weak.”
Finally, in 1979, the unit’s then-director, Meyer, published a study questioning certain benefits of the surgery that helped convince the Hopkins hierarchy to eliminate its sex reassignment program entirely. But that early foray into gender reassignment here has maintained a long media shelf life. Before a recent case conference, Strand passed around a copy of a New Yorker essay containing a sex-change joke punctuated with a reference to Hopkins; it was published last May, nearly two decades after the Hospital last performed such surgery.
To psychiatrist Wise, who’s been with the sex unit since 1974, its strength lies in a set of practices poles away from the New Yorker portrayal. Not being “buffeted about” by all the societal changes of the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s on issues like gender dysphoria is one of the qualities that makes this group stand out, he says. Without looking beyond mainstream America, the unit’s been able to see thousands of men and women through deep sexual conflicts.
********
Stand by for a response from Obama.....
Loretta Lynch / the DOJ, the IRA, and a host of other agencies will pay a visit to Johns Hopkins followed by an Executive Order mandating Sex Change Operations be covered by the ACA.
Stand by for a response from Obama.....
Loretta Lynch / the DOJ, the IRA, and a host of other agencies will pay a visit to Johns Hopkins followed by an Executive Order mandating Sex Change Operations be covered by the ACA.
Skylar, it's Friday, it's April Fool's day, and it was a joke. We wouldn't be surprised if it happened, but no one actually thinks it will, not even Silhouette. Take a breath and smile, buddy! Have a great weekend.
