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

[Silhouette]

No, not just like an oil company.

The childen are not little oil derricks.

No, the children are the pristine environment to be wrecked by the "parties to the land in question" bleeding their lifestyle over into the estuaries and fresh water of the People.

At least your not being melodramatic or anything.

Not at all, that's your venue. I'm being illustrative for those having trouble grasping how other people can be implied parties to a contract or a holding.

I'll leave the "gay teen suicides" up to you guys.. And when you get around to it, try to talk about the multiple reasons why gay teens are killing themselves, not just your "they're being bullied!" expedient favorite, OK? And if you don't want to go there just now because you're saving that ace of spades up for an acute political situation, maybe you can talk about how kids raised in gay home have a higher propensity for suicide from a feeling of not mattering in a functional adult world if their own gender wasn't in the home...

...wait...then suddenly young people killing themselves won't get as much air time, right? That oil fouling the fresh waters of the states won't see the media limelight for even a second...

...oh, wait, there I go being "melodramatic again". That's reserved only for you folks, I forgot....who own the media and who own the rights to all the reasons young people are killing themselves...

No, you're making up pseudo-legal gibberish. There is no 'implied contract' with children in marriage. As children aren't capable of entering into contracts. Nor does marriage require children or the ability to have them to be valid.

Children are part of contracts though, aren't they? Child actors? They need guardians with them, but none were present at the Hearing last Spring. The contract they share and suffer or enjoy the greatest effects thereof was revised in their absence. Worse still, they tried to squeak their voices through crack when adult children raised in gay homes wrote amicus briefs saying "we've done this and it isn't a good idea for us". They were completely ignored in the Opinion. So, it was done illegally according to contract law. We'll let lawyers and case law parse out if it's legal to leave parties to a contract out of its revision. Sound good to you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Thumbsucker" is an excellent descriptor for Sil.

 

[Skylar]

Children are part of contracts though, aren't they?

Children aren't 'implied' participants in marriage. The only participants are those who enter into a marriage. You're making up pseudo-legal nonsense backed by your imagination as a legal argument.

Your imagination is not legal evidence. Neither the law nor the courts recognize your 'chidlren are contracted under marriage' gibberish. Nor does any marriage require any child to be valid. Making your requirements for gays extra-legal and constitutionally invalid. As the standards you insist they be held to do not exist.

YOU believe that marriage is only about children. And your subjective opinions do not form the basis of any law, nor any legal precedent. And consequently have no relevance to any legal discussion. As your only evidence is your imagination. And your imagination isn't evidence.

Leaving your argument void of any legally valid evidence. Nor having the slightest relevance to any legal outcome. Which, of course, explains why your every legal prediction has been wrong. You're simply not basing your legal predictions on the law.

 

[Silhouette]

Children are part of contracts though, aren't they?

Children aren't 'implied' participants in marriage. The only participants are those who enter into a marriage.

Well we seem to disagree. The only way to test who's legal theory is correct is to have a conservative state pass a law that seeks to protect children from either fatherless or motherless marriages, or to withdraw tax breaks for those marriages until those homes can provide both vital parents for the kids in them...and see what happens as the church of LGBT challenges this new threat to its dogma.

Walk that puppy right back up to SCOTUS and force Kennedy to put in writing "children don't matter when it comes to the marriage contract." I guess that's all I'm really asking for here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"The only way to test who's legal theory is correct is to have a conservative state pass a law that seeks to protect children from either fatherless or motherless marriages, or to withdraw tax breaks for those marriages until those homes can provide both vital parents for the kids in them...and see what happens as the church of LGBT challenges this new threat to its dogma.<

Go for it.

 

[Skylar]

Children are part of contracts though, aren't they?

Children aren't 'implied' participants in marriage. The only participants are those who enter into a marriage.

Well we seem to disagree.

Not just you and me. You and the law. As there is no legal recognition of anything you've argued. You're literally insisting that we hold gays to standards that do not exist.

And of course nothing you've proposed remedies anything you've argued is a problem. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't make them opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children will never have married parents.

Which only hurts children. And helps no one.

The only way to test who's legal theory is correct is to have a conservative state pass a law that seeks to protect children from either fatherless or motherless marriages, or to withdraw tax breaks for those marriages until those homes can provide both vital parents for the kids in them...and see what happens as the church of LGBT challenges this new threat to its dogma.

Or....to check the actual law. No state requires anyone have children to get married. Or be able to have children. Nor is there any mention of children being 'implied' participants in a contract.

And given your record of legal predictions has been one of perfect failure, where every piece of pseudo-legal gibberish you insist be 'tested' has been rejected, every court case you've predicted the outcome of has come down opposite of your beliefs.......there's no rational or logical reason to conclude that your latest prediction has any merit.

Especially since you're using the same basis of legal 'evidence' as you did for all your previous failures: yourself.

 

[Silhouette]

"The only way to test who's legal theory is correct is to have a conservative state pass a law that seeks to protect children from either fatherless or motherless marriages, or to withdraw tax breaks for those marriages until those homes can provide both vital parents for the kids in them...and see what happens as the church of LGBT challenges this new threat to its dogma.<

Go for it.

Well, I'm not a state. But what you're saying is "states should go for it and see what happens". And I agree with you on that. It's all from a matter of knowing a bit about contract law and how law-dominance is written with respect to the rights of children's perennial needs over adult's contemporary whims.. I'd be willing to bet that swift horse over the church of LGBT's three-legged fatherless/motherless "let's pretend to play house" glue factory nag.

And BTW, methinks the LGBT legal experts here doth protest too much for how much they profess to be so confident this idea will flop...

 

[Skylar]

"The only way to test who's legal theory is correct is to have a conservative state pass a law that seeks to protect children from either fatherless or motherless marriages, or to withdraw tax breaks for those marriages until those homes can provide both vital parents for the kids in them...and see what happens as the church of LGBT challenges this new threat to its dogma.<

Go for it.

Well, I'm not a state. But what you're saying is "states should go for it and see what happens". And I agree with you on that. It's all from a matter of knowing a bit about contract law and how law-dominance is written with respect to the rights of children's perennial needs over adult's contemporary whims.

But you don't know contract law. Or the legal basis of marriage. You're inventing your claims, citing yourself. No state recognizes marriage as a contract on children. No state requires children to be married.

Again, Sil.....you've done this dozens of times before. You make up pseudo-legal gibberish based on your imagination. You ignore the actual law. You make predictions basedo n your gibberish. And the law contradicts you.

But this time its different? Um, no. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. And you've already demonstrated repeatedly the results of your 'my imagination is the law' nonsense:

Failure.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, like Keys and saintmike, falls back on citing herself without possessing any authority.

 

[mdk]

No, not just like an oil company.

The childen are not little oil derricks.

No, the children are the pristine environment to be wrecked by the "parties to the land in question" bleeding their lifestyle over into the estuaries and fresh water of the People.

At least your not being melodramatic or anything.

Not at all, that's your venue. I'm being illustrative for those having trouble grasping how other people can be implied parties to a contract or a holding.

I'll leave the "gay teen suicides" up to you guys.. And when you get around to it, try to talk about the multiple reasons why gay teens are killing themselves, not just your "they're being bullied!" expedient favorite, OK? And if you don't want to go there just now because you're saving that ace of spades up for an acute political situation, maybe you can talk about how kids raised in gay home have a higher propensity for suicide from a feeling of not mattering in a functional adult world if their own gender wasn't in the home...

...wait...then suddenly young people killing themselves won't get as much air time, right? That oil fouling the fresh waters of the states won't see the media limelight for even a second...

...oh, wait, there I go being "melodramatic again". That's reserved only for you folks, I forgot....who own the media and who own the rights to all the reasons young people are killing themselves...

What the fuck does all this babble have to to do with you bucking to win an Oscar? Talk about a gear shift. lol.

 

[mdk]

Sil claimed the fate of humanity depends upon Kim Davis' nonexistent civil rights trial and yet claims other are being melodramatic.

 

[mdk]

But what you're saying is "states should go for it and see what happens". And I agree with you on that. It's all from a matter of knowing a bit about contract law and how law-dominance is written with respect to the rights of children's perennial needs over adult's contemporary whims..

I remember your thread where you proposed this as the gold standard for a constitutional amendment. I can't recall the exact name of your amendment but, no doubt it is equally moronic. I remember you 'daring' the Democrats to vote against it b/c than they could be accused of hating abused children or some such poppycock. I can't recall if this amendment of yours was going to happen before or after Congress impeaches Kagan and Ginsberg? Or before the rehearing of Obergefell v Hodges?

It can be troublesome keeping all of your wild legal predictions straight. lol

 

[Silhouette]

No, not just like an oil company.

The childen are not little oil derricks.

No, the children are the pristine environment to be wrecked by the "parties to the land in question" bleeding their lifestyle over into the estuaries and fresh water of the People.

At least your not being melodramatic or anything.

Not at all, that's your venue. I'm being illustrative for those having trouble grasping how other people can be implied parties to a contract or a holding.

I'll leave the "gay teen suicides" up to you guys.. And when you get around to it, try to talk about the multiple reasons why gay teens are killing themselves, not just your "they're being bullied!" expedient favorite, OK? And if you don't want to go there just now because you're saving that ace of spades up for an acute political situation, maybe you can talk about how kids raised in gay home have a higher propensity for suicide from a feeling of not mattering in a functional adult world if their own gender wasn't in the home...

...wait...then suddenly young people killing themselves won't get as much air time, right? That oil fouling the fresh waters of the states won't see the media limelight for even a second...

...oh, wait, there I go being "melodramatic again". That's reserved only for you folks, I forgot....who own the media and who own the rights to all the reasons young people are killing themselves...

What the fuck does all this babble have to to do with you bucking to win an Oscar? Talk about a gear shift. lol.

Easy, the family marriage contract stands to harm its other party (children). I said as much here:

Children are part of contracts though, aren't they? Child actors? They need guardians with them, but none were present at the Hearing last Spring. The contract they share and suffer or enjoy the greatest effects thereof was revised in their absence. Worse still, they tried to squeak their voices through crack when adult children raised in gay homes wrote amicus briefs saying "we've done this and it isn't a good idea for us". They were completely ignored in the Opinion. So, it was done illegally according to contract law. We'll let lawyers and case law parse out if it's legal to leave parties to a contract out of its revision. Sound good to you?

Are there cases where children are party to a contract? Yes, of course there are. This is one of them and good luck arguing it isn't. The marriage contract is "The Children's Contract Quintessential". And they were wholly shut out of the table upon where it's fundamental revision was crafted. Which is illegal according to contract law. The Hearing and Opinion from it were/are improper and a mistrial.

 

[mdk]

Your amendment isn't any different from the one you propose here. Just worded differently and using the same failed logic that you caused you to abandon that thread.

What's up with the spam at the top? Did you think a second time would make it true? Hint: it doesn't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[Silhouette]

This is you >> after a new Hearing finds that the old one was in error because of the missing parties to the contract's revision. So, laugh it up now while you can...

 

[Skylar]

No, not just like an oil company.

The childen are not little oil derricks.

No, the children are the pristine environment to be wrecked by the "parties to the land in question" bleeding their lifestyle over into the estuaries and fresh water of the People.

At least your not being melodramatic or anything.

Not at all, that's your venue. I'm being illustrative for those having trouble grasping how other people can be implied parties to a contract or a holding.

With the obvious problem hamstringing your reasoning being that children aren't 'implied partners' in any marriage. Your entire basis of argument is just you making shit up, citing yourself.

Which again, has nothing to do with the actual law. And offers no insight into the outcome of any court case. As you've demonstrated for us repeatedly by basing your legal predictions on your imagination.....and failing perfectly.

Its not the entire legal system, all legal definitions and all laws that are wrong.

Its just you.

 

[Skylar]

This is you >> after a new Hearing finds that the old one was in error because of the missing parties to the contract's revision. So, laugh it up now while you can...

More pseudo-legal gibberish. You don't understand contract law, have made up children being 'implied partners in marriage', and are contradicted by the fact that no one is required to have children in order to be married. No law nor court ruling recognizes your assertions as valid. And the standards that you insist we apply to gays doesn't exist.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Your claims have nothing to do with the law. And are irrelevant to any legal outcome.

You're just self soothing in another thumbsucker thread.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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'

Children would be better off feral, raised by wolves, than to be raised by homos.

 

[Skylar]

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'

Children would be better off feral, raised by wolves, than to be raised by homos.

The children of gays overwhelmingly disagree. As does the court. As does the law.