Clarifying The "Unanimous" Gay Adoption Ruling From SCOTUS Recently: The Fight Heats Up (Poll)

[Silhouette]

Children aren't parties to the marriage of their parents...

Just a quick question....how many of the USSC Justices do you think will sign off on that exact statement in any challenge to come asserting the opposite?

 

[Skylar]

Children aren't parties to the marriage of their parents...

Just a quick question....how many of the USSC Justices do you think will sign off on that exact statement in any challenge to come asserting the opposite?

Can you show us any court ruling or law that recognizes children as being parties to the marriage of their children? Feel free to include Supreme Court rulings.

 

[Silhouette]

Children aren't parties to the marriage of their parents...

Just a quick question....how many of the USSC Justices do you think will sign off on that exact statement in any challenge to come asserting the opposite?

Can you show us any court ruling or law that recognizes children as being parties to the marriage of their children? Feel free to include Supreme Court rulings.

Note the future tense of the question. Now, answer it. How many Justices? 3? 5? 8?..

 

[Skylar]

Children aren't parties to the marriage of their parents...

Just a quick question....how many of the USSC Justices do you think will sign off on that exact statement in any challenge to come asserting the opposite?

Can you show us any court ruling or law that recognizes children as being parties to the marriage of their children? Feel free to include Supreme Court rulings.

Note the future tense of the question. Now, answer it. How many Justices? 3? 5? 8?..

With no court or law every having recognized any of your pseudo-legal gibberish as having any legal validity......0 if it ever came up. As a party to a contract can sue. If children were recognized as being parties to the marriage of their parents, they could sue to prevent divorces for example. Or sue to start divorce proceedings.

Which the courts are unlikely to support.

Remember......you made up all your 'contract' gibberish, pulled sideways out of your ass. And your imagination has a pretty poor track record with the courts.

So far your record for predicting the outcome of legal preceding is one of perfect failure. You've literally never been right. Which from a statistical perspective is actually quite remarkably.

 

[mdk]

Children aren't parties to the marriage of their parents...

Just a quick question....how many of the USSC Justices do you think will sign off on that exact statement in any challenge to come asserting the opposite?

Can you show us any court ruling or law that recognizes children as being parties to the marriage of their children? Feel free to include Supreme Court rulings.

Note the future tense of the question. Now, answer it. How many Justices? 3? 5? 8?..

I know how many Justices whom won't be citing your imagination as precedent. Hint: Nine

 

[Skylar]

Children aren't parties to the marriage of their parents...

Just a quick question....how many of the USSC Justices do you think will sign off on that exact statement in any challenge to come asserting the opposite?

Can you show us any court ruling or law that recognizes children as being parties to the marriage of their children? Feel free to include Supreme Court rulings.

Note the future tense of the question. Now, answer it. How many Justices? 3? 5? 8?..

I know how many Justices whom won't be citing your imagination as precedent. Hint: Nine

Be fair. With Scalia joining the 'circle of life', Sil can pretend to be channeling both Scalia and the 3 pound of pastrami that clogged the man's heart.

 

[aris2chat]

ridiculous to think an adoption in one state would not be valid elsewhere. The make up of the family is irrelevant.
gay, straight, single, should not matter. Family is family.

if the child or children are loved, that is what matters.

Why do people care or think they should interfere in the private lives and family without cause?

the asinine bigotry and hate is way out if place in the US in this day and age.

Love is love, love of family is love of family, by any combination it will be a good thing.

Close minded parents that can't accept their children for who they are should loose their children.

Straight, married, does not mean they are good people.

If people go through the process of adoption they are probably more prepared than a couple who accidentally have kids.

Toss the labels and stereotypes. Get rid of the hate. Just accept people for who they are.
Keep your long nose out of their private business.

I'd be far more concerned about the upright straight laced bigots of the world than of people who choose to adopt or go to great extents to have children.

If gays, single parent or adopting bother you, crawl back into your cave.

So many bad parents and unhappy homes. Real crime, drugs, abuse out there, and family tragedies in abundance, leave the nonconformists happy people out there alone.

 

[Skylar]

ridiculous to think an adoption in one state would not be valid elsewhere. The make up of the family is irrelevant.
gay, straight, single, should not matter. Family is family.

The Supreme Court agreed. Not only unanimously, but so thoroughly that they didn't even need to hold a hearing to listen to arguments. Their judgment was summary.

 

[Dhara]

Rule of law ought to be YOU out of MY family. Period.

So you're in favor of families with children escaping the watchful eyes of others as to the children's welfare. OK. But federal law says differently. Maybe you could challenge it on appeal?

What? You make ZERO sense.

 

[Skylar]

Rule of law ought to be YOU out of MY family. Period.

So you're in favor of families with children escaping the watchful eyes of others as to the children's welfare. OK. But federal law says differently. Maybe you could challenge it on appeal?

What? You make ZERO sense.

You should see Sil going on about Gallup polling being 'infiltrated by homosexuals'. That nutty batshit is a hoot!

 

[Inevitable]

I hold that is is better for the kid to have mother and father in their life. Unfortunately, that is not always possible. There are millions of single parent families, either through death, desertion, or divorce. Should they be allowed to have kids or adopt kids, or does this thread essentially boil down to homophobia?

All of silhouette's threads boil down to that.

 

[Dhara]

Poor sil. All those queers out to get her!

 

[IsaacNewton]

Just an aside, if posters could do some research on how to construct a poll and how to word questions it would help. I've noticed many of the questions in polls online, not just here, are jumbled thoughts the poster has but can't reduce down to single short sentences.

Brevity when constructing a poll question would help a lot. And generally a poll should be from one end of the spectrum to the other, rather than 6-10 vaguely worded questions where half of them look similar.

And relax, I know no one here is a professional poller, neither am I. As a writer I like to help others write. If this is offensive, feel free to ignore.

 

[Silhouette]

Just an aside, if posters could do some research on how to construct a poll and how to word questions it would help. I've noticed many of the questions in polls online, not just here, are jumbled thoughts the poster has but can't reduce down to single short sentences.

Brevity when constructing a poll question would help a lot. And generally a poll should be from one end of the spectrum to the other, rather than 6-10 vaguely worded questions where half of them look similar.

And relax, I know no one here is a professional poller, neither am I. As a writer I like to help others write. If this is offensive, feel free to ignore.

Well I'm open to suggestions. I could just copy and paste the OP with shorter poll options. How would you have written it? I can later ask the mods to just delete this thread.

 

[Skylar]

Just an aside, if posters could do some research on how to construct a poll and how to word questions it would help. I've noticed many of the questions in polls online, not just here, are jumbled thoughts the poster has but can't reduce down to single short sentences.

Brevity when constructing a poll question would help a lot. And generally a poll should be from one end of the spectrum to the other, rather than 6-10 vaguely worded questions where half of them look similar.

And relax, I know no one here is a professional poller, neither am I. As a writer I like to help others write. If this is offensive, feel free to ignore.

Well I'm open to suggestions. I could just copy and paste the OP with shorter poll options. How would you have written it? I can later ask the mods to just delete this thread.

First, these are straw polls. Meaning that rather than a random cross section of the nation, you get only interested parties. Worse, you can vote as many times as you want. Third, your polling sample is uselessly small, often less than 100 votes.

Strawpolls are notoriously inaccurate. A poll that allows the same person to vote repeatedly skew results. And small polling samples are notoriously inaccurate.

Yet you've repeatedly misrepresented a strawpoll from a message board as being an accurate national poll of American opinion.

That's ludicrous. But then, most of your arguments are.

 

[Silhouette]

Whatever bro. This is just a thread on USMB. I'm not PPP or anything. I think the questions are adequate to reflect the mindset of those answering them. For instance, I notice one person voted how they thought it was important for a child to have both a mother and father but were supporting gay marriage anyway.

What any logician can take away from that statement is that the person so voting at minimum puts the wants of adults above the needs of children. If that was a question on an adoption application, the agency would reject them. I think that actually is a standard question on adoption applications "would you be willing to put aside your wants in order to forward the child's needs"? Pretty standard. If the answer is "no", they don't get to adopt.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Just an aside, if posters could do some research on how to construct a poll and how to word questions it would help. I've noticed many of the questions in polls online, not just here, are jumbled thoughts the poster has but can't reduce down to single short sentences.

Brevity when constructing a poll question would help a lot. And generally a poll should be from one end of the spectrum to the other, rather than 6-10 vaguely worded questions where half of them look similar.

And relax, I know no one here is a professional poller, neither am I. As a writer I like to help others write. If this is offensive, feel free to ignore.

Well I'm open to suggestions. I could just copy and paste the OP with shorter poll options. How would you have written it? I can later ask the mods to just delete this thread.

No reason to delete a thread, I'm just offering an observation. I'd start by making the questions shorter and in sequence. Go from one end of the spectrum to the other. Your particular questions do lend themselves to be longer but still, find a way to say it succinctly.

And I would break these things into two polls.

- Do you support gay marriage.
- Do you support gay married couples having children.

Again, only suggestions. As you note this is a message board and not the board of directors at Gallup! You are free to do it however you think you should do it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No reason to delete a thread, I'm just offering an observation. I'd start by making the questions shorter and in sequence. Go from one end of the spectrum to the other. Your particular questions do lend themselves to be longer but still, find a way to say it succinctly.

And I would break these things into two polls.

- Do you support gay marriage.
- Do you support gay married couples having children.

Again, only suggestions. As you note this is a message board and not the board of directors at Gallup! You are free to do it however you think you should do it.

You should check out more of Sil's "polls", in the common vernacular they would be seen as "push polls" because of the loaded language in the question and or response.

Even then she then lies about what they mean. For example, she asked a question about whether Churches should be forced by the government to perform same-sex marriages. Then she continually would site that poll as proof that Americans didn't support same-sex civil marriage - when the poll had nothing to do with that subject.



>>>>

 

[IsaacNewton]

No reason to delete a thread, I'm just offering an observation. I'd start by making the questions shorter and in sequence. Go from one end of the spectrum to the other. Your particular questions do lend themselves to be longer but still, find a way to say it succinctly.

And I would break these things into two polls.

- Do you support gay marriage.
- Do you support gay married couples having children.

Again, only suggestions. As you note this is a message board and not the board of directors at Gallup! You are free to do it however you think you should do it.

You should check out more of Sil's "polls", in the common vernacular they would be seen as "push polls" because of the loaded language in the question and or response.

Even then she then lies about what they mean. For example, she asked a question about whether Churches should be forced by the government to perform same-sex marriages. Then she continually would site that poll as proof that Americans didn't support same-sex civil marriage - when the poll had nothing to do with that subject.



>>>>

Well I'm only commenting on the construction of the poll.

Yes making a poll here and then citing it as a polling authority doesn't hold water. But my main observation was on brevity of construction.

 

[Silhouette]

And I would break these things into two polls.

- Do you support gay marriage.
- Do you support gay married couples having children.

Where's the question about children having both a mom and dad?