Idea For New Constitutional Amendment: "The Child Consideration Amendment"

[Syriusly]

What SIl is proposing is that every custody case in any divorce.....be decided by majority vote in an election.

That's insane.

Nope, stop misquoting, lying and then basing an argument on a fallicy.

I said that the new Amendment becomes THE GOLD STANDARD FOR ANY JUDGE, JURY OR TRIBUNAL to follow in any question where adults wants are pitted against a child's needs.

The example of divorce: A home is experiencing hostilties between parents at a point that a child is suffering daily in that atmosphere. Divorce is in the best interest at that point of the child. Divorce granted. Next case?

See how easy this Gold Standard is to apply?

But wait......you have told us repeatedly that the best interest for a child is to have a mother and father that are married.

So according to you- no divorce.

 

[Syriusly]

From the OP

The motherless/fatherless marriage question

Silhouette has said that depriving a child of a married mother and father is child abuse.

But then says that it may be in the child's best interest for the child not to have a mother and father.

So logically- it may be in the child's best interest to have two father's or two mother's.

Silhouette would leave that decision to judges- not the parents.

 

[Skylar]

What SIl is proposing is that every custody case in any divorce.....be decided by majority vote in an election.

That's insane.

Nope, stop misquoting, lying and then basing an argument on a fallicy.

I said that the new Amendment becomes THE GOLD STANDARD FOR ANY JUDGE, JURY OR TRIBUNAL to follow in any question where adults wants are pitted against a child's needs.

The example of divorce: A home is experiencing hostilties between parents at a point that a child is suffering daily in that atmosphere. Divorce is in the best interest at that point of the child. Divorce granted. Next case?

See how easy this Gold Standard is to apply?

But wait......you have told us repeatedly that the best interest for a child is to have a mother and father that are married.

So according to you- no divorce.

Granting a divorce would thus be a matter for public vote as well. No child custody and no divorce unless the public votes it in.

For each divorce. And each case of child custody.

This 'amendment' just keeps getting worse and worse.

 

[Skylar]

From the OP

The motherless/fatherless marriage question

Silhouette has said that depriving a child of a married mother and father is child abuse.

But then says that it may be in the child's best interest for the child not to have a mother and father.

So logically- it may be in the child's best interest to have two father's or two mother's.

Silhouette would leave that decision to judges- not the parents.

NOpe. The amendment requires that any ruling that involves the welfare of children be put to a public vote. Judges don't get to decide anything related to children.

So any divorce proceeding would have to be approved by a public vote in the next election. Any child custody case. And changes to child support. Any adjustment to custody.

The judges couldn't even offer interim rulings, as it would violate the amendment.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

To rob a child of a loving, father and mother home by deliberately constructing a domestic structure that omits one or the other is cruel and selfish. .

Millions of children are being raised by a single parent because one or both parents have deliberately constructed a domestic structure that omits one or the other.

I look forward to Silhouette's campaign to protect children by outlawing the divorce of parents.

I agree that it happens too often. I think that prisoners who have children are just as hideous, having made choices that will deprive their child of their presence growing up. Believe me, I'm not just pegging this on gay couples.

And it's not that gay couples are ill intentioned, the two that I know very well I trust with my own children as "aunts". But in the long run it's not enough. A child without a mother begins to long to have a mommy like his friends do, or a daddy. A wonderful mother is not a father even if you double them, and a wonderful father, even two of them, is not a mother. To do this to a child with intent is wrong regardless of sexual orientation.

And thank you that your responses to me are always civil. As I'm being exposed to the human element of this issue, I'm learning to appreciate other viewpoints.

Yes. And your two lesbian friends aren't alone in the LGBT community believing that children should have a mother and father in any marriage. After all, they almost all had access to both a mother and a father.

I guess some of them just don't want their own kids to have what they had.

I'm glad to know them. I can take in stride the Gaysteppo I see here knowing they don't represent real gay people.

And I know many fine and decent Christians who treat other human being decently.

That does make it easier to take the shrill demands of the Christo-Fascists, knowing they only represent a small portion of the stridently intollerent and hateful.

Your post would make sense if by "decent Christians" you didn't mean Christians who compromise their beliefs with worldly values until the term becomes meaningless and by "intolerant and hateful" you didn't mean those who hold views that conflict with yours.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Rights aren't subject to a majority vote. You want them to be. You're wrong. .

Let me save that quote from you for the future OK? Because one thing that CAN happen is a Constitutional Amendment to put Children's considerations of needs over adult's of wants. ..

Ah but who gets decide what are the Children's best considerations? Ay and theres the rub.

Do we take children away from Native American homes- in their best interest? We used to.
Do we sterilize poor people - in their children's best interest? We used to.
Do we take children away from single parents- in their children's best interest?
Do we require parents to live with each other- in their children's best interests?
Do we start taking children away from homes- if 'we' decide they are the 'wrong' kind of homes- Mormon homes, Bahai homes, African American homes, North African homes.

Right now children can be taken away from their parents under only very, very limited circumstances.

What Silhouette is proposing opens the door for the majority to remove kids from any parents the majority cares to discriminate against.

Oh......then she's not targeting gays after all.

I sure wish you people would make up your minds.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

If a person never lays a hand on a gay person but merely vocally disagrees with their politics, how is that "an attack"? Exactly? And isn't it an attack on children to systematically encourage adults with tax-breaks to create homes that are motherless/fatherless? I thought we encouraged marriage to keep those two vital people together for a child's best interest? Suddenly children don't matter to you Skyar?

Why do you hate and attack children all the time?

Marriage is not about children. They are, often enough, a byproduct of married sexual intercourse. How many times do you have to be told that?

Oddly enough you think your OPINION that marriage isn't about children is unassailable truth. Maybe if you say it a few more times it becomes true.

 

[Syriusly]

Millions of children are being raised by a single parent because one or both parents have deliberately constructed a domestic structure that omits one or the other.

I look forward to Silhouette's campaign to protect children by outlawing the divorce of parents.

I agree that it happens too often. I think that prisoners who have children are just as hideous, having made choices that will deprive their child of their presence growing up. Believe me, I'm not just pegging this on gay couples.

And it's not that gay couples are ill intentioned, the two that I know very well I trust with my own children as "aunts". But in the long run it's not enough. A child without a mother begins to long to have a mommy like his friends do, or a daddy. A wonderful mother is not a father even if you double them, and a wonderful father, even two of them, is not a mother. To do this to a child with intent is wrong regardless of sexual orientation.

And thank you that your responses to me are always civil. As I'm being exposed to the human element of this issue, I'm learning to appreciate other viewpoints.

Yes. And your two lesbian friends aren't alone in the LGBT community believing that children should have a mother and father in any marriage. After all, they almost all had access to both a mother and a father.

I guess some of them just don't want their own kids to have what they had.

I'm glad to know them. I can take in stride the Gaysteppo I see here knowing they don't represent real gay people.

And I know many fine and decent Christians who treat other human being decently.

That does make it easier to take the shrill demands of the Christo-Fascists, knowing they only represent a small portion of the stridently intollerent and hateful.

Your post would make sense if by "decent Christians" you didn't mean Christians who compromise their beliefs with worldly values until the term becomes meaningless and by "intolerant and hateful" you didn't mean those who hold views that conflict with yours.

My post makes absolute sense on its own

And I know many fine and decent Christians who treat other human being decently.

That does make it easier to take the shrill demands of the Christo-Fascists, knowing they only represent a small portion of the stridently intollerent and hateful.

The Christo Fascist represent the wing of Christianity that is all about hate- not love.

 

[Syriusly]

Rights aren't subject to a majority vote. You want them to be. You're wrong. .

Let me save that quote from you for the future OK? Because one thing that CAN happen is a Constitutional Amendment to put Children's considerations of needs over adult's of wants. ..

Ah but who gets decide what are the Children's best considerations? Ay and theres the rub.

Do we take children away from Native American homes- in their best interest? We used to.
Do we sterilize poor people - in their children's best interest? We used to.
Do we take children away from single parents- in their children's best interest?
Do we require parents to live with each other- in their children's best interests?
Do we start taking children away from homes- if 'we' decide they are the 'wrong' kind of homes- Mormon homes, Bahai homes, African American homes, North African homes.

Right now children can be taken away from their parents under only very, very limited circumstances.

What Silhouette is proposing opens the door for the majority to remove kids from any parents the majority cares to discriminate against.

Oh......then she's not targeting gays after all.

I sure wish you people would make up your minds.

Every thread Silhouette starts(with the odd exception having to do with the environment) is about attacking homosexuals.

Which is why she says batshit crazy stuff like

So if this Amendment were to happen, your LGBT cult would really have to shove their pistols deep in the backs of psychologists at the APA and elsewhere (that institution has been formally censured once already by Congress for promoting sick acts against children) to "make depriving kids of either a mother or father healthy, normal and OK for them".

 

[Montrovant]

If a person never lays a hand on a gay person but merely vocally disagrees with their politics, how is that "an attack"? Exactly? And isn't it an attack on children to systematically encourage adults with tax-breaks to create homes that are motherless/fatherless? I thought we encouraged marriage to keep those two vital people together for a child's best interest? Suddenly children don't matter to you Skyar?

Why do you hate and attack children all the time?

Marriage is not about children. They are, often enough, a byproduct of married sexual intercourse. How many times do you have to be told that?

Oddly enough you think your OPINION that marriage isn't about children is unassailable truth. Maybe if you say it a few more times it becomes true.

Legally speaking, marriage clearly is not about children. There are no requirements to have children, no requirements to be able to have children, no punishments for not having children, no bars to any number of marriages without children. Children certainly are often born into marriages, but children are often born without marriage, as well.

Now, if you are talking about a religious definition of marriage, or a personal definition, that's a different story. From the perspective of US law, though, he's right.

 

[Votto]

The motherless/fatherless marriage question may very likely be returned to the People of the sovereign states to decide upon, on behalf of children that we all are guardians of collectively. You can't remove society's voice on something that affects the wellbeing of children. That can't be done. In fact, I'd have that written into the US Constitution as a new Amendment: "Any court decision on appeal that affects the potential wellbeing of children must be put back to voters of the separate states... There can be no ruling found that favors adult wants over a child's needs".

ie, in any question where an adult's wants can be predicted to deprive, set ill at ease, harm, torment, harass, disparage, suppress or any other tort against a child's wellbeing, that case must be decided within the boundaries of a state by a referendum or a mandate to all judges to weigh heavily upon the child's needs before the adult's wants. This application of law would be the gold standard.

It isn't an "anti-gay" Amendment, though the usual crowd will scream foul that it is. It is a pro-child amendment which is long long long overdue. Children cannot vote and as such their considerations and rights are more downtrodden than any other class of people in the US.

And if put to a vote in Congress today, or next year.. I would dare any democrat to come out against a pro-child Amendment. The protections aren't limited just to marriage and how it affects their formative years. It also would protect them from neglect, abuse and exploitation and save them from any slick lawyer arguing on behalf of adults at their expense. The Amendment could actually have wording that "every child is best served by having a mother and a father present in their life on a regular basis", while acknowledging that doesn't always happen.. the striving would be towards that goal in their best interest.

And if democrats reject the proposal on the grounds that "it would affect gay marriage"...then so be it. Advertise loud and clear that they preferred the "rights" to a deviant lifestyle over the wellbeing of children. They would also be "coming out" either anti-mother or anti-father. Not good on any front really if you think about it.. Name each and every democratic Congressperson who so rejected the bill. Any rejection of the bill will make them look machiavellian and into child abuse....and it would be a cake-walk to say it just like that.

Congresspeople?

Government has no interest in helping children. After all, it's not like they send them money like the rich gay lobbiests.

If anything, government is waging war on children via such policies as abortion, a substandard public school system, mounting debt that will cripple the future, and a public school system devoid of morality.

They just can't abort them fast enough.

 

[Votto]

According to SCOTUS, corporations are people but not the unborn.

SCOTUS has spoken, the debate is over. LOL

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If a person never lays a hand on a gay person but merely vocally disagrees with their politics, how is that "an attack"? Exactly? And isn't it an attack on children to systematically encourage adults with tax-breaks to create homes that are motherless/fatherless? I thought we encouraged marriage to keep those two vital people together for a child's best interest? Suddenly children don't matter to you Skyar?

Why do you hate and attack children all the time?

Marriage is not about children. They are, often enough, a byproduct of married sexual intercourse. How many times do you have to be told that?

Oddly enough you think your OPINION that marriage isn't about children is unassailable truth. Maybe if you say it a few more times it becomes true.

1. We don't ask if you can have children before we issue you a marriage license.
2. See 1.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

According to SCOTUS, corporations are people but not the unborn.

SCOTUS has spoken, the debate is over. LOL

Corporations have some of the same rights as people. So does a fetus, if it's developed enough.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Cool. Let's also throw people in jail that spank their kids.

They already do.

Odessa Mother Jailed After Slapping Her Child in the Face - KWES NewsWest 9 Midland Odessa Big Spring TX newswest9.com

 

[Silhouette]

Government has no interest in helping children. After all, it's not like they send them money like the rich gay lobbiests.

If anything, government is waging war on children via such policies as abortion, a substandard public school system, mounting debt that will cripple the future, and a public school system devoid of morality.

They just can't abort them fast enough.

As to abortion, if an adult woman's needs outweigh that of a fetus...like her need to survive the pregnancy or the child's needs to not suffer a life with a horrible birth defect, then the adult's needs are needs. It doesn't violate the Gold Standard of wants vs needs. When the child is of a gestational age it can survive being born, the adult's "I don't want to have this baby" do not outweigh the child's needs to survive to birth. Before that, the child isn't a viable birth. And that's what all the debate about "late term abortions" is about.

The GOP could avoid all that by simply saying that who this applies to is the child who is breathing on its own or with the help of a ventilator upon premature birth. From that point on legislation could be argued over "at what age a child is a viable living separate being".

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

If a person never lays a hand on a gay person but merely vocally disagrees with their politics, how is that "an attack"? Exactly? And isn't it an attack on children to systematically encourage adults with tax-breaks to create homes that are motherless/fatherless? I thought we encouraged marriage to keep those two vital people together for a child's best interest? Suddenly children don't matter to you Skyar?

Why do you hate and attack children all the time?

Marriage is not about children. They are, often enough, a byproduct of married sexual intercourse. How many times do you have to be told that?

Oddly enough you think your OPINION that marriage isn't about children is unassailable truth. Maybe if you say it a few more times it becomes true.

1. We don't ask if you can have children before we issue you a marriage license.
2. See 1.

That's because the procreative purpose of marriage is so intrinsic it requires no mention, also because having children is not a requirement to be married, even if marriage throughout the history of civilization has been for the purpose of creating a family.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Rights aren't subject to a majority vote. You want them to be. You're wrong. .

Let me save that quote from you for the future OK? Because one thing that CAN happen is a Constitutional Amendment to put Children's considerations of needs over adult's of wants. ..

Ah but who gets decide what are the Children's best considerations? Ay and theres the rub.

Do we take children away from Native American homes- in their best interest? We used to.
Do we sterilize poor people - in their children's best interest? We used to.
Do we take children away from single parents- in their children's best interest?
Do we require parents to live with each other- in their children's best interests?
Do we start taking children away from homes- if 'we' decide they are the 'wrong' kind of homes- Mormon homes, Bahai homes, African American homes, North African homes.

Right now children can be taken away from their parents under only very, very limited circumstances.

What Silhouette is proposing opens the door for the majority to remove kids from any parents the majority cares to discriminate against.

Oh......then she's not targeting gays after all.

I sure wish you people would make up your minds.

Every thread Silhouette starts(with the odd exception having to do with the environment) is about attacking homosexuals.

Which is why she says batshit crazy stuff like

So if this Amendment were to happen, your LGBT cult would really have to shove their pistols deep in the backs of psychologists at the APA and elsewhere (that institution has been formally censured once already by Congress for promoting sick acts against children) to "make depriving kids of either a mother or father healthy, normal and OK for them".

Is there even a speck of objectivity rattling around inside that head of yours? Let me ask you as if I didn't already know the answer, do you believe your threads to be "attacking Christians?"

Another business owner receives threats from pro-Christian anti-Homosexuals US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Or do you think it's only "attacking" and "hate" and "bigotry" when others do it?

Your problem is you take yourself way to seriously and you are impoverished of any ability to laugh at yourself. That, my friend, is mental illness.

 

[Syriusly]

Rights aren't subject to a majority vote. You want them to be. You're wrong. .

Let me save that quote from you for the future OK? Because one thing that CAN happen is a Constitutional Amendment to put Children's considerations of needs over adult's of wants. ..

Ah but who gets decide what are the Children's best considerations? Ay and theres the rub.

Do we take children away from Native American homes- in their best interest? We used to.
Do we sterilize poor people - in their children's best interest? We used to.
Do we take children away from single parents- in their children's best interest?
Do we require parents to live with each other- in their children's best interests?
Do we start taking children away from homes- if 'we' decide they are the 'wrong' kind of homes- Mormon homes, Bahai homes, African American homes, North African homes.

Right now children can be taken away from their parents under only very, very limited circumstances.

What Silhouette is proposing opens the door for the majority to remove kids from any parents the majority cares to discriminate against.

Oh......then she's not targeting gays after all.

I sure wish you people would make up your minds.

Every thread Silhouette starts(with the odd exception having to do with the environment) is about attacking homosexuals.

Which is why she says batshit crazy stuff like

So if this Amendment were to happen, your LGBT cult would really have to shove their pistols deep in the backs of psychologists at the APA and elsewhere (that institution has been formally censured once already by Congress for promoting sick acts against children) to "make depriving kids of either a mother or father healthy, normal and OK for them".

Is there even a speck of objectivity rattling around inside that head of yours? Let me ask you as if I didn't already know the answer, do you believe your threads to be "attacking Christians?"

Another business owner receives threats from pro-Christian anti-Homosexuals US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Or do you think it's only "attacking" and "hate" and "bigotry" when others do it?
.

I think it is attacking, hate and bigotry when it is done to Christians or done by Christians

I think any threats of violence are wrong.

You apparently are okay with Silhouette starting a thread a day for the express purpose of attacking homosexuals- I am not.

 

[Silhouette]

Fallicy: Disagreeing with homosexuals is not "attacking" them...though if you are part of the cult, questioning your dogma might feel like an attack to a brittle person incapable of dealing with give and take.