Conservative State Challenge: "The Child-Protective/Fiscal-Future Marriage Act"

[Silhouette]

You know- a family like this one?
View attachment 50632

I dunno Syriusly. What makes you gleeful in that picture, makes my stomach turn. Those two gay men look far too thrilled with drooling twink-aged handicapped boys "in their custody". You're probably too young to remember, but I remember the horror stories of sexual abuse of handicapped kids in institutions. I'm sure it's just a memory reaction from the old horror days. But there's nothing like having captives who are too impared to convey what's happening to them. Why aren't they two handicapped girls? That would be a more serene photo from my point of view.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That dog won't hunt, Sil. Those are non-starters. We were both abused. You need to get over it, because abuse has been shown to occur at about the same incident rate by heteros and homos. Devote your energy and passion into good parenting causes for all children.

That's exactly what I am doing. There is no pain of child abuse worse than psychological. Bruises heal. Internal pain does not. The kids writing the amicus briefs who were raised in gay homes said "we experience psychological pain of deprivation as a result". Nobody listened to them. Will you advocate duct taping the mouths of children who are in psychological pain?

Sil, you don't give a shit about chidlren. You care only about hurting gays and lesbians. As denying marriage to same sex parents doensn't mean that their children have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that they never have marri3ed parents.

Which hurts those children and helps no child. Your proposal does nothing you're demanding be done.

I ask again, are you insisting that gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to raise their own children? Because that seems to be what you're arguing.

What do you mean, "their own" children? It takes two human beings to create one child and they can't be the same sex. So are we talking about sperm banks? Surrogacy? It's all different flavors of the same immoral scheme to raise a child while deliberately depriving them of a mother and a father. There is no clearer example of selfishness than to put one's whims above the needs and rights of children. You people are just evil.

Here is a photo of Bob and Dolores Hope with their own children.

View attachment 50631

All adopted.

Please tell me you aren't one of those people who tells adoptive parents that they aren't 'real parents' or that its too bad that they can't have 'real children'?

Adoptive mother father couples are real parents. All other combinations are just sick people sucking an innocent child into their demonic delusions.

Like killing cats?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You know- a family like this one?
View attachment 50632

I dunno Syriusly. What makes you gleeful in that picture, makes my stomach turn. Those two gay men look far too thrilled with drooling twink-aged handicapped boys "in their custody". You're probably too young to remember, but I remember the horror stories of sexual abuse of handicapped kids in institutions. I'm sure it's just a memory reaction from the old horror days. But there's nothing like having captives who are too impared to convey what's happening to them. Why aren't they two handicapped girls? That would be a more serene photo from my point of view.

Why don't you care for all adoptive and foster children?

 

[Silhouette]

Why don't you care for all adoptive and foster children?

I do. But I especially care about those that are most vulnerable getting "adopted" by predators. I'm sure the institution only had boys to send to a gay male home. Can you imagine being that adoption agent? "Yes maam...we'd like to adopt two severely handicapped boys"..."Well we have a couple of girls that have cerebral palsy"..."nnn..no no maam, we want boys". "uh...oh...ok (I have to be politically correct! I have to be politically correct!..cripes, they put that one gal in JAIL!..)...let me see what we have.."

 

[JakeStarkey]

I care for the children who are being groomed by heteroes for adoption as well as those by LGBT. There are far, far more of those, and you don't care.

 

[Silhouette]

I care for the children who are being groomed by heteroes for adoption as well as those by LGBT. There are far, far more of those, and you don't care.

Oh, you want to talk about propensity between gay and straight and an orphan's chances at that crapshoot with being adopted by predators.

OK, in a straight couple adopting say, a girl. At least the girl has a mother who could step in on her behalf, referee, who isn't sexually attracted to females. In a gay male couple adopting say, a boy, that boy has nobody in the adult world in his home who isn't sexually attracted to his gender.

I'd say all things weighed on the scale, the girl going to the hetero home has at least a 50-50 chance. A boy, especially a severely handicapped one who can't convey information well, has a much much smaller chance going to a gay male home of coming out unscathed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, you, no more than Keys, are an authority. You can't even handicap the horse races. Don't start with children's lives.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, you, no more than Keys, are an authority. You can't even handicap the horse races. Don't start with children's lives.

And no authorities from the Prince's Trust Survey were consulted at last Spring's hearing. Nor were any attorneys present for the missing parties to the marriage contract. And all amicus briefs filed begging the court to keep married homes with both a mother and a father, submitted by adult children who knew better than any of us...having grown up in gay homes...were summarily dismissed without a second word.

Kids were wholesale left out of this contract revision. And that's a legal blunder that's going to be corrected.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why would that happen? It has nothing to do with the right to marry.

 

[Silhouette]

Children have everything to do with the right to marry

 

[Silhouette]

Why would that happen? It has nothing to do with the right to marry.

Yes it does. Let's say an oil company has "a right to drill" on their land near an estuary. But the state its in has a "right to protect the environment" because what the oil company claims rights to do, affects the state's ecological system it relies on for clean water and fisheries.

So even though the court case is about "the oil company's right to drill according to the rules of land ownership", the state gets to weigh in as an implied partner to that land ownership because that land doesn't stay contained with all its adverse effects once drilling starts. That filth spills over and harms other people. So by virtue of the venue, other people are parties who have a say in whether or not oil companies can drill on their own land.

Children are always anticipated in married homes. So much so that marrieds have special legal priveleges above others who wish to adopt or foster. They are selected first because a married home's definition is (was) "the premiere place to raise children". Children are implied partners to the marriage contract. The contract is between two adults, but who those two adults are matter to children fundamentally. Those two adults for the kids best interest are a man and a woman. No other combination will do from their point of view.

And since marriage has always been for and about children since the institution's inception, the overhaul June 2015 (without the consent of children) has created an inferior polluting situation to the children's minds. Girls raised without a mother feel a sense of not mattering. Boys raised without a father feel a sense of not mattering. Both show a distinct propensity to grow up to be troubled, indigent burdens upon the state they live in.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Children have everything to do with the right to marry

Not in law.

 

[Silhouette]

Children have everything to do with the right to marry

Not in law.

That depends on which jury is hearing the case. You might be surprised to learn that an overwhelming number of Americans believe that children are very much a part of the marriage contract. And laws are made by a majority.

And if you want to retort your favorite line "we are a republic and the majority cannot regulate the rights of the individual!". I would agree with you. A gay majority cannot regulate civil rights away from children. Minimal of their civil rights would be for their custodians (society at large) to regulate their formative environment that is enticed by tax breaks to create their best shot at life.

And that is, was and always will be a home with both a mother and father in it. This question will come down to who has the most dominant rights to the marriage contract: adult gays who want to strip children of a mother or father, who can vote and have all the rights and priveleges of anyone, or children who cannot vote, are the more oppressed class clearly by far; and who are utterly reliant upon the whims and regulations of adults as to what is done to them day in and day out.

How does that work again? I think you know..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keep thinking that, Sil.

 

[Silhouette]

ok

 

[Syriusly]

Clearly it isn't being solved...The majority of children not having a mother or a father are:
a) children being raised by single parents, whose mother or father has abandoned them and b) children abandoned by both parents.
The so-called incentives you keep claiming are for some purpose do not work- since there are more single parent households than ever.
Denying a gay couple marriage gives no child two opposite gender parents.
Denying a gay couple marriage benefits no child.
Denying a gay couple who are parents marriage harms their children- by denying them married parents

The problem is the abandonment of basic standards of morality and decency, and disregard for the responsibilities that apply to marriage, childbearing, and family.

Like a standard cliché of wrong-wing ideology, you propose to treat this disease with ever greater doses of exactly the same poison that is causing it in the first place. More moral decay and degradation is not a remedy for the problems that are already being caused by moral decay and degradation.

No- I am not proposing to 'treat' anything- other than the gay couples and their children equally.

Silhouette says that gay couples should be denied marriage in order to protect children- but as I pointed out

Denying a gay couple marriage gives no child two opposite gender parents.
Denying a gay couple marriage benefits no child.
Denying a gay couple who are parents marriage harms their children- by denying them married parents

Like a standard cliche' of reflexive Conservatism, you are willing to cause harm to children, to push your philosophical ideal.

 

[Syriusly]

That dog won't hunt, Sil. Those are non-starters. We were both abused. You need to get over it, because abuse has been shown to occur at about the same incident rate by heteros and homos. Devote your energy and passion into good parenting causes for all children.

That's exactly what I am doing. There is no pain of child abuse worse than psychological. Bruises heal. Internal pain does not. The kids writing the amicus briefs who were raised in gay homes said "we experience psychological pain of deprivation as a result". Nobody listened to them. Will you advocate duct taping the mouths of children who are in psychological pain?

Sil, you don't give a shit about chidlren. You care only about hurting gays and lesbians. As denying marriage to same sex parents doensn't mean that their children have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that they never have marri3ed parents.

Which hurts those children and helps no child. Your proposal does nothing you're demanding be done.

I ask again, are you insisting that gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to raise their own children? Because that seems to be what you're arguing.

What do you mean, "their own" children? It takes two human beings to create one child and they can't be the same sex. So are we talking about sperm banks? Surrogacy? It's all different flavors of the same immoral scheme to raise a child while deliberately depriving them of a mother and a father. There is no clearer example of selfishness than to put one's whims above the needs and rights of children. You people are just evil.

Here is a photo of Bob and Dolores Hope with their own children.

View attachment 50631

All adopted.

Please tell me you aren't one of those people who tells adoptive parents that they aren't 'real parents' or that its too bad that they can't have 'real children'?

Adoptive mother father couples are real parents. All other combinations are just sick people sucking an innocent child into their demonic delusions.

Yeah- these 'sick' people who adopt children abandoned by their biological parents. What demonic delusions leads them to want to love children who have been abandoned by their own parents simply because they were handicapped? Clearly you think that these children should only have a mother and father- or no parents at all- anything else is 'demonic'

 

[Syriusly]

Children have everything to do with the right to marry

Despite the absolute lack of anything to support that claim.

Meanwhile- why do you want harm to come to the children of homosexuals?

 

[Syriusly]

Sil, you, no more than Keys, are an authority. You can't even handicap the horse races. Don't start with children's lives.

And no authorities from the Prince's Trust Survey were consulted at last Spring's hearing. Nor were any attorneys present for the missing parties to the marriage contract. And all amicus briefs filed begging the court to keep married homes with both a mother and a father, submitted by adult children who knew better than any of us...having grown up in gay homes...were summarily dismissed without a second word.

Kids were wholesale left out of this contract revision. And that's a legal blunder that's going to be corrected.

You told us that the Supreme Court would be basing their ruling on the Prince's Trust Silhouette- once again you were wrong.

Of course since the Prince's Trust study doesn't say anything about parents at all or parenting- or gay parents- why would it have ever been mentioned?

 

[Syriusly]

I care for the children who are being groomed by heteroes for adoption as well as those by LGBT. There are far, far more of those, and you don't care.

Oh, you want to talk about propensity between gay and straight and an orphan's chances at that crapshoot with being adopted by predators.

OK, in a straight couple adopting say, a girl. At least the girl has a mother who could step in on her behalf, referee, who isn't sexually attracted to females. In a gay male couple adopting say, a boy, that boy has nobody in the adult world in his home who isn't sexually attracted to his gender.

I'd say all things weighed on the scale, the girl going to the hetero home has at least a 50-50 chance. A boy, especially a severely handicapped one who can't convey information well, has a much much smaller chance going to a gay male home of coming out unscathed.

Child molesters are almost exclusively men.

By that standard- any child would be safer in a household with 1 or 2 women than any household with a man.

IF the odds of being molested were figured in- lesbian couples would always be given preference over any other couple.

I mean if any of this really had anything to do with preventing harm to children- rather than your anti- homosexual obsession.