Dumont v Lyons 2017 : Will Fathers (or Mothers) Be Judicially-Legislated Into Irrelevance?

[Syriusly]

[
As usual, when Syriusly spams a page into oblivion, I repost it on a new page. 8 posts in a row, 7 addressed to me. That's getting a but much..

As usual, when I respond to Silhouette's SPAMA-thon- she complains that I am the one spamming.

Every post was a response to a post either by Silly or another poster- all addressing Silhouette's lack of responsiveness to posts or outright dishonest as to her citations.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent.

Unless the lesbians in Dumont are polygamists, they most certainly do have a contract which banishes a father from the home forever. Once again we have a pay per post LGBT blogger who can't grasp the fundamentals of stark reality. Two lesbians married are two women married. Did you miss that part?

 

[Syriusly]

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent.

Unless the lesbians in Dumont are polygamists, they most certainly do have a contract which banishes a father from the home forever.

I have answered that lie repeatedly.

As I have repeatedly pointed out and you repeatedly ignore- that is another of your bald faced lies.

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent.

As I have pointed out repeatedly- I personally know a couple that adopted kids (mother was an addict and a criminal, father unable financially or emotionally able to care full time for his kids) and invited the father to be part his kids lives.
He saw them several times a week and volunteered at their school.

You are just lying in order to harm children.

 

[Silhouette]

Really? Is it a bald faced lie that two lesbians "married" mean two women in the home only for children? No. Unless it's polygamy. I think if there were two women and one man all as lovers in the home, the adoption agency might have objections to that. But maybe not, since polygamy is technically legal via Obergefell's "consenting adults in love" precedent. "Two" is never mentioned in the Constitution. It would be as discriminatory to prohibit polygamy as it would gay marriage in the strictest sense of the rationale of Obergefell. Think of the children it would "harm" if all their loving parents weren't married?

Will that be the overcoming argument in Dumont when the idea of father-banishment from the home is brought up in the lesbian's "marriage" contract vying for equal access to all orphans of Michigan?

 

[Syriusly]

Really? Is it a bald faced lie that two lesbians "married" mean two women in the home only for children? No. Unless it's polygamy.=

Your bald faced lie is that there exists any contract which banishes a father from the home forever.

I have answered that lie repeatedly.

As I have repeatedly pointed out and you repeatedly ignore- that is another of your bald faced lies.

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent.

As I have pointed out repeatedly- I personally know a couple that adopted kids (mother was an addict and a criminal, father unable financially or emotionally able to care full time for his kids) and invited the father to be part his kids lives.
He saw them several times a week and volunteered at their school.

You are just lying in order to harm children

 

[Silhouette]

The marriage contract two lesbians share with ophans they might adopt says on its face that no father will ever live in their home. For life.

 

[Syriusly]

The marriage contract two lesbians share with ophans they might adopt says on its face that no father will ever live in their home. For life.

I have answered that lie repeatedly.

As I have repeatedly pointed out and you repeatedly ignore- that is another of your bald faced lies.

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent.

As I have pointed out repeatedly- I personally know a couple that adopted kids (mother was an addict and a criminal, father unable financially or emotionally able to care full time for his kids) and invited the father to be part his kids lives.
He saw them several times a week and volunteered at their school. If they had wanted to they could have had him live in their home- they could have rented a room to him.

You are just lying in order to harm children.

And you don't use the reply button because you keep hoping I won't notice your reply.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent.

Two lesbians married possess an oral contract that guarantees the absence of a male parent in the home for life. "Male parent" aka father. Sorry that the facts got in the way of your argument.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent.

Two lesbians married possess an oral contract that guarantees the absence of a male parent in the home for life. "Male parent" aka father. Sorry that the facts got in the way of your argument.

Hey you found the reply button! Progress!

I have answered that lie repeatedly.

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent.

As I have pointed out repeatedly- I personally know a couple that adopted kids (mother was an addict and a criminal, father unable financially or emotionally able to care full time for his kids) and invited the father to be part his kids lives.
He saw them several times a week and volunteered at their school. If they had wanted to they could have had him live in their home- they could have rented a room to him.

You are just lying in order to harm children.

Again.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent.

.

I notice, and not by mistake, you are using the generic term "any parent". I'm talking specifically about a father-parent. A marriage contract between two lesbians guarantees for life there will be no father-parent in the home for children. Studies show this is a particular concern for boy orphans.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent.

As I have pointed out repeatedly- I personally know a couple that adopted kids (mother was an addict and a criminal, father unable financially or emotionally able to care full time for his kids) and invited the father to be part his kids lives.
He saw them several times a week and volunteered at their school.

So that's Dumont's argument? A legal agreement whereupon all children adopted to lesbians must have regular contact with a father outside the home? The judge might compromise on that. Glad to see you're finally acknowledging the importance to children of a regular father in their life. But I'm not sure all lesbians would agree to this. And since the precedent will be set for all lesbians to have marriage contracts prohibiting a father under the same roof as kids, it may flop in court under scrutiny.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent.

As I have pointed out repeatedly- I personally know a couple that adopted kids (mother was an addict and a criminal, father unable financially or emotionally able to care full time for his kids) and invited the father to be part his kids lives.
He saw them several times a week and volunteered at their school.

So that's Dumont's argument? A legal agreement whereupon all children adopted to lesbians must have regular contact with a father outside the home?

No- that is me pointing out that your claim that the marriage of two lesbians 'bars fathers from children for life' is a lie.

Again

And Again.

Neither marriage or adoption guarantee that children will have a father.

But denying marriage to a gay couple with children will harm their children.

Denying parents to children whose biological parents have abandoned them- will harm them.

Why do you want to harm children?

 

[Silhouette]

Which father is in the home in a lesbian wedding contract?

 

[Syriusly]

Which father is in the home in a lesbian wedding contract?

Which father is in the home of the child living with foster parents? Or in an orphanage?

Why do you want policies that you know will harm children?

 

[Silhouette]

Which father is in the home in a lesbian wedding contract?

Which father is in the home of the child living with foster parents? Or in an orphanage?

The one with a penis & testicles. Or are they legally-irrelevant now too in connection with the word "father"?

 

[Syriusly]

Which father is in the home in a lesbian wedding contract?

Which father is in the home of the child living with foster parents? Or in an orphanage?

The one with a penis & testicles. Or are they legally-irrelevant now too in connection with the word "father"?

So you think that there is a 'father' with a 'penis & testicles' in the orphanage?

 

[Silhouette]

Which father is in the home in a lesbian wedding contract?

Which father is in the home of the child living with foster parents? Or in an orphanage?

The one with a penis & testicles. Or are they legally-irrelevant now too in connection with the word "father"?

So you think that there is a 'father' with a 'penis & testicles' in the orphanage?

No. I know there is no & never will be a father with penis & testicles in a lesbian home with a marriage contract.

And that is the problem with Dumont.

 

[Syriusly]

Which father is in the home in a lesbian wedding contract?

Which father is in the home of the child living with foster parents? Or in an orphanage?

The one with a penis & testicles. Or are they legally-irrelevant now too in connection with the word "father"?

So you think that there is a 'father' with a 'penis & testicles' in the orphanage?

No. I know there is no & never will be a father with penis & testicles in a lesbian home with a marriage contract.

And that is the problem with Dumont.

I have answered that lie repeatedly.

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent.

As I have pointed out repeatedly- I personally know a couple that adopted kids (mother was an addict and a criminal, father unable financially or emotionally able to care full time for his kids) and invited the father to be part his kids lives.
He saw them several times a week and volunteered at their school. If they had wanted to they could have had him live in their home- they could have rented a room to him.

You for some bizarre reason prefer that children be left to rot in foster homes with no mother or father at all- than to have two mothers who have volunteered to be forever parents to these children.

Why do you want to allow harm to children?

 

[Silhouette]

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent.

A lesbian marriage contract in fact ,does banish the presence in the home to any children of a father for life. So, unless you're changing the word "father" to mean "anyone with or without testicles and a penis who simply fills the old role of patriarch in the home", there is no father for children in the home of a lesbian marriage. And since their vows are "till death do they part", this is true for the entire life of the contract that children share with them.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent.

A lesbian marriage contract in fact ,does banish the presence in the home to any children of a father for life. So, unless you're changing the word "father" to mean "anyone with or without testicles and a penis who simply fills the old role of patriarch in the home", there is no father for children in the home of a lesbian marriage. And since their vows are "till death do they part", this is true for the entire life of the contract that children share with them.

I have answered that lie repeatedly.

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent.

As I have pointed out repeatedly- I personally know a couple that adopted kids (mother was an addict and a criminal, father unable financially or emotionally able to care full time for his kids) and invited the father to be part his kids lives.
He saw them several times a week and volunteered at their school. If they had wanted to they could have had him live in their home- they could have rented a room to him.

You for some bizarre reason prefer that children be left to rot in foster homes with no mother or father at all- than to have two mothers who have volunteered to be forever parents to these children.

Or for the children of a lesbian couple- you want to deny their mother's marriage- which as Obergefell notes- causes harm to their children.

Why do you want to allow harm to children?