Foundation of American Law at Risk: Obergefell 2015 A Reversible Ruling?

[JakeStarkey]

Sil simply does not grasp what is a contract.

 

[mdk]

Oh, for the love of god! We're back to talking about wolves raising children again. I almost forgot about that classic!

 

[Skylar]

It is not a necessity, whether a couple is married or not. Children can be and have been raised by same sex parents. Many studies of children raised by same sex parents have shown them to be just about the same as children raised by opposite sex parents in terms of self-esteem, gender identity, and general emotional well-being.

You are talking about events outside marriage. Wolves have successfully raised children. Should we have wolf-marriage now too because of that false premise? Obviously not.

Pay attention here: THE REASON THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT WAS INVENTED OVER A THOUSAND YEARS AGO WAS TO PROVIDE BOTH A MOTHER AND FATHER TO CHILDREN IN THE SAME HOME AS THE ADULTS. Since both boys and girls arrive as children in a married home, it is vital that both role models be present. If they're not, the Prince's Trust survey 2010 PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY and the amicus briefs linked in my signature say that the lack of the gender-specific parental role model (the epitome of role models) HURTS CHILDREN.

That contractual provision of both mother and father innate to the marriage contract since its inception,for children, was just removed, without their consent, and to their detriment. And that, of course, is forbidden under necessities, infants and contract law. Children not only did not disaffirm the marriage contract of mother/father, they were barred from having a voice at Obergefell. All proposed contractual revisions demand as a matter of deep established law that all parties to that contract, written or implied, MUST have representation at the proposed revision Hearing. That simply didn't happen. As I've said, Obergefell therefore was a mistrial. You can't have a hearing on a matter without all parties to that matter having representation or being present at the Hearing. Good luck challenging THAT one with case law

I see you are backing down, unlike your cohorts here, on claiming that children somehow aren't implicit sharers of the marriage contract. Good. Baby steps...

Back to the 'raised by wolves' insanity, I see.

1. I'd like to see any verified case of children being raised by wolves. I'd further like to see them turning out to be happy, productive members of society.

2. You have yet to provide a shred of evidence that marriage was invented to provide a mother and father to children.

3. You have been shown that your description of the Prince's Trust is in error at best, but more likely a deliberate misrepresentation. The survey never says that the same gender role models discussed must be a parent, or even related to the children in question. In fact, in a later Index, the Prince's Trust talks about how the organization provides role models for children. Based on their own words, the people who conduct the Prince's Trust do not think that a parent is the only possible positive same gender role model. More, having a parent in no way guarantees a positive role model. I will make an educated guess that the gender of a role model is far less important than whether they are a positive or negative role model.

4. I have already pointed out how you have misrepresented the Contracts of Minors link from your sig line. The necessities quote you use is regarding contracts to which minors are signatories. It means that although minors usually may not be able to enter into contracts, when those contracts furnish necessary goods to a minor, the minors can be held liable for the contracts.

5. Your claims about children being required to have representation in any hearing regarding marriage law are ludicrous and hold no legal weight. Children are not an integral part of the marriage contract. Marriage can and does exist without children, quite often in fact. Some marriages never include children, some marriages continue after children become adults. More, children do not have the same legal rights or voice as adults. You have created yet another fictional legal hurdle. It is completely meaningless outside of this discussion.

I haven't 'backed down' on anything. The primary parties in a marriage contract are the two adults who are getting married. Their children, present or future, are not also married to them. That children are affected by marriage does not make them a party to the contract; pets may be affected by a marriage, property may be affected by a marriage, but those things are not party to the contract.

Oh, the Obergefell ruling slams the entire idea of Sil's premise:

This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

So Sil ignores the Supreme Court on the very topic she's discussing.....and then imagines her own version of the ruling.

Alas, her imagination doesn't actually change the Obergefell ruling, its authority, or our law.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, for the love of god! We're back to talking about wolves raising children again. I almost forgot about that classic!

Its a classic. My favorite is still her claims about Gallup being infiltrated by homosexuals to skew polling results though. Its like a batshit layer cake.

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[Syriusly]

Apparently the 'Catholic Adoption agencies' are going to sue to make sure that the children of same sex couples can never have married parents.

Which helps no child. And hurts tens of thousands.

Understanding of course that 'Catholic Adoption Agency' is just the name Sil has given one of her voices. Though conveniently if there are two such voices, Sil can just refer to them by their acronym ....and get a true sense of the value of their claims.

You know, your position seems to be "screw kids,.

Odd- because that is exactly your position when it comes to gay kids, and kids who have gay parents.

You prefer kids not have any families, after their biological parents abandon them, rather than have gay parents.

Because you are willing to screw kids over to attack homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

It is not a necessity, whether a couple is married or not. Children can be and have been raised by same sex parents. Many studies of children raised by same sex parents have shown them to be just about the same as children raised by opposite sex parents in terms of self-esteem, gender identity, and general emotional well-being.

Wolves have successfully raised children.

Wolves look at children as yummy snacks.

But- here is the thing- Silhouette would prefer that wolves 'raise' children- rather than a couple of humans- who happen to be gay.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, for the love of god! We're back to talking about wolves raising children again. I almost forgot about that classic!

Its a classic. My favorite is still her claims about Gallup being infiltrated by homosexuals to skew polling results though. Its like a batshit layer cake.

My favorite still is that the "Gays" forced Pope Benedict XVI to resign.......

 

[Skylar]

It is not a necessity, whether a couple is married or not. Children can be and have been raised by same sex parents. Many studies of children raised by same sex parents have shown them to be just about the same as children raised by opposite sex parents in terms of self-esteem, gender identity, and general emotional well-being.

Wolves have successfully raised children.

Wolves look at children as yummy snacks.

But- here is the thing- Silhouette would prefer that wolves 'raise' children- rather than a couple of humans- who happen to be gay.

Well, yeah. But Sil is insane. Not the pejorative 'you cray-cray' kind of insane.

But 4th gen anti-pschotics kind of insane.

 

[mdk]

Oh, for the love of god! We're back to talking about wolves raising children again. I almost forgot about that classic!

Its a classic. My favorite is still her claims about Gallup being infiltrated by homosexuals to skew polling results though. Its like a batshit layer cake.

My favorite still is that the "Gays" forced Pope Benedict XVI to resign.......

Damn, I missed that one.

 

[mdk]

Oh, for the love of god! We're back to talking about wolves raising children again. I almost forgot about that classic!

Its a classic. My favorite is still her claims about Gallup being infiltrated by homosexuals to skew polling results though. Its like a batshit layer cake.

I am still a big fan of Roof going on a murderous killing spree b/c an unaffiliated church opposed gay marriage. lol

 

[Skylar]

Oh, for the love of god! We're back to talking about wolves raising children again. I almost forgot about that classic!

Its a classic. My favorite is still her claims about Gallup being infiltrated by homosexuals to skew polling results though. Its like a batshit layer cake.

My favorite still is that the "Gays" forced Pope Benedict XVI to resign.......

Damn, I missed that one.

Yeah, but in your defense it would be like missing a rock covered in batshit in the caves under Bruce Wayne's house.

 

[mdk]

Yeah, but in your defense it would be like missing a rock covered in batshit in the caves under Bruce Wayne's house.

 

[Syriusly]

I am thinking of starting a thread on Silhouette's most ridiculous and batshit crazy theories- so here are the ones mentioned here:

• Wolves raise children- so don't let gays raise children
• "Gays" forced Pope Benedict XVI to resign
• Roof was gay- determined by Silhouette's gaydar- and went on a murderous killing spree b/c an unaffiliated church opposed gay marriage.
• The White House must have known in advance of the Obergefell decision because they put up rainbow lights.

Anything that I am forgetting?

 

[mdk]

I am thinking of starting a thread on Silhouette's most ridiculous and batshit crazy theories- so here are the ones mentioned here:

• Wolves raise children- so don't let gays raise children
• "Gays" forced Pope Benedict XVI to resign
• Roof was gay- determined by Silhouette's gaydar- and went on a murderous killing spree b/c an unaffiliated church opposed gay marriage.
• The White House must have known in advance of the Obergefell decision because they put up rainbow lights.

Anything that I am forgetting?

Does the forum have the bandwidth to accomplish such as task ?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I am thinking of starting a thread on Silhouette's most ridiculous and batshit crazy theories- so here are the ones mentioned here:

• Wolves raise children- so don't let gays raise children
• "Gays" forced Pope Benedict XVI to resign
• Roof was gay- determined by Silhouette's gaydar- and went on a murderous killing spree b/c an unaffiliated church opposed gay marriage.
• The White House must have known in advance of the Obergefell decision because they put up rainbow lights.

Anything that I am forgetting?

I seem to remember...

• Homosexuals invaded Gallup and "fudged" (pun intended) the numbers to show an increase in support for Same-sex Civil Marriage.
• Wasn't there something about blackmail of the SCOTUS Justices that supported SSCM?
• The Windsor decision said that States could bar SSCM.

>>>>

 

[Agit8r]

3. Neither children nor their attorneys were present at the Obergefell Hearing. Children are implicit parties to a marriage contract. Any contract standing for revision requires the presence of all parties to said contract.

Strangely, marriage contracts are dissolved without the permission of affected minors, routinely

 

[Agit8r]

 

[Silhouette]

Strangely, marriage contracts are dissolved without the permission of affected minors, routinely

Only when the psychological atmosphere in the home becomes so abusive to endure that there is no other remedy. There is nothing worse for a child to be in a home where two people outwardly or inwardly despise each other to their core. And don't forget where a large share of the time in divorce court is spent: tending to the children's NEEDS to have access to BOTH their mother and father after the divorce. Still, even in divorce that baseline provision of the thousands-years-old original contract is maintained. Thus bolstering my points and not detracting from them. Thanks for bringing up divorce court and the marriage contract to underscore what I'm talking about..

 

[Agit8r]

Strangely, marriage contracts are dissolved without the permission of affected minors, routinely

Only when the psychological atmosphere in the home becomes so abusive to endure that there is no other remedy. There is nothing worse for a child to be in a home where two people outwardly or inwardly despise each other to their core. And don't forget where a large share of the time in divorce court is spent: tending to the children's NEEDS to have access to BOTH their mother and father after the divorce. Still, even in divorce that baseline provision of the thousands-years-old original contract is maintained. Thus bolstering my points and not detracting from them. Thanks for bringing up divorce court and the marriage contract to underscore what I'm talking about..

Not all divorces end in joint custody. Custody is not always a source of contention. A divorce is not contingent on permission from the children (or their lawyers )