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

[Silhouette]

..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.

In fact, marriage was set up to deal with the birth of children and to make sure they had parents who would protect them the best and provide for them. Long long ago it was figured out that wedlock children do not fare as well as others who have married parents. Mother and father who provide the most balanced/protective role models.

States incentivized marriage in order to reduce the number of wedlock children (children with either a mother or father absent). Now it's incentivizing child-trafficking instead where at least one surrogate parent is surrendering their child for the exchange of money into a situation (sans father or mother) that can be predicted to predispose them to psychological demise. See post #164 CA s Babies For Sale Are Private Surrogacy Contracts The Same As Child-Trafficking Page 17 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[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.

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.

That is neither accurate nor the history of marriage. And we don't ask because children are, often enough, a byproduct of marital sex, which we approve of just as we do that of marriage but, you keep putting the cart before the horse.

This children's song is correct:

[Name] and [Name]
sitting in a tree,
K-I-S-S-I-N-G.
First comes love,
then comes marriage,
then comes baby (maybe)
in a baby carriage![3]

 

[Lonestar_logic]

My vote is no. It's the dumbest idea I've heard in a long time.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

The dogma, and the fear, and the hatred are all yours. It's why you are blind to anything like reality.

 

[Silhouette]

My vote is no. It's the dumbest idea I've heard in a long time.

So according to Lonestar, an Amendment protecting the needs of children over the wants of adults is "a bad idea, the dumbest s/he's heard in a long time"

Don't leave your kids with Lonestar to babysit folks!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

..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.

In fact, marriage was set up to deal with the birth of children...

That is incorrect. It's much, much more complicated than your black and white tiny mind can deal with: Here s Why The Idea Of Traditional Marriage Is Total Bullsh t

And: 13 Facts on the History of Marriage

 

[Lonestar_logic]

My vote is no. It's the dumbest idea I've heard in a long time.

So according to Lonestar, an Amendment protecting the needs of children over the wants of adults is "a bad idea, the dumbest s/he's heard in a long time"

Don't leave your kids with Lonestar to babysit folks!

There are already laws in place to protect children. I've raised five children to the age of majority as a single father, my wife died giving birth to twins leaving me with them and three other children who were aged 10, 7 and 2. So I've got plenty of experience raising children.

 

[Silhouette]

There are already laws in place to protect children. I've raised five children to the age of majority as a single father, my wife died giving birth to twins leaving me with them and three other children who were aged 10, 7 and 2. So I've got plenty of experience raising children.

Then you'd have no objections to putting those protections enshrined as the gold standard in an Amendment. I don't see your conflict. Your position is that too much protection of children's basic needs is a bad thing? That a voteless class, the last one in our country doesn't deserve an Amendment that mandates judges, juries and tribunals to weigh their needs heavier than adult wants?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

There are already laws in place to protect children. I've raised five children to the age of majority as a single father, my wife died giving birth to twins leaving me with them and three other children who were aged 10, 7 and 2. So I've got plenty of experience raising children.

Then you'd have no objections to putting those protections enshrined as the gold standard in an Amendment. I don't see your conflict. Your position is that too much protection of children's basic needs is a bad thing? That a voteless class, the last one in our country doesn't deserve an Amendment that mandates judges, juries and tribunals to weigh their needs heavier than adult wants?

I don't think an amendment is needed. Next you'll want an amendment protecting puppies.

 

[Silhouette]

Puppies aren't Citizens.

 

[Silhouette]

There are already laws in place to protect children. I've raised five children to the age of majority as a single father, my wife died giving birth to twins leaving me with them and three other children who were aged 10, 7 and 2. So I've got plenty of experience raising children.

Then you'd have no objections to putting those protections enshrined as the gold standard in an Amendment. I don't see your conflict. Your position is that too much protection of children's basic needs is a bad thing? That a voteless class, the last one in our country doesn't deserve an Amendment that mandates judges, juries and tribunals to weigh their needs heavier than adult wants?

I don't think an amendment is needed. Next you'll want an amendment protecting puppies.

Nice strawman. Back to people, US Citizens...
Why would you object to protecting children's needs from adult's non-needs? (wants/whims)

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Puppies aren't Citizens.

So they don't deserve protection?

What about the most vulnerable of babies, those with beating hearts that are sucked out of a woman's womb? Do they deserve an amendment?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

There are already laws in place to protect children. I've raised five children to the age of majority as a single father, my wife died giving birth to twins leaving me with them and three other children who were aged 10, 7 and 2. So I've got plenty of experience raising children.

Then you'd have no objections to putting those protections enshrined as the gold standard in an Amendment. I don't see your conflict. Your position is that too much protection of children's basic needs is a bad thing? That a voteless class, the last one in our country doesn't deserve an Amendment that mandates judges, juries and tribunals to weigh their needs heavier than adult wants?

I don't think an amendment is needed. Next you'll want an amendment protecting puppies.

Nice strawman. Back to people, US Citizens...
Why would you object to protecting children's needs from adult's non-needs? (wants/whims)

What are some examples of adult's whims over children's needs?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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



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

Your so full of yourself you don't even see that your inability to tolerate other points of view paints your perception so that when you "attack" Christians, it isn't really attacking, but anyone who makes a thread about gays is "attacking" them and is full of hate, bigotry, etc. You literally think your shit doesn't stink and while it's amusing from my point of view to see people like you always angry, bitter, and taking yourselves and this forum way to seriously, I'm sure it's a burden for you; fetters from which you see no escape.

So let's set the record straight because that's the best therapy I can offer. Having different viewpoints is not "hate" and expressing those viewpoints is not "attacking". And there is no such indictment you can direct toward others that can't as easily be directed toward you which is why I posted one of your threads.

Secondly, having seen your paltry thread creation record it's clear that you aren't an ideas person like Silhouette. People like you don't have any ideas, you just wait for others to come up with ideas and then you pounce. Even the threads you post are reactions to articles you see, not innovative discussion starters. You have no equivalent to my thread about Josh Duggar and the Message of Forgiveness. Silhouette is a prolific thread author, introducing new angles of discussion. If you truly want to be a worthy adversary, you should become the same. Lord knows both of you have more time than I do with a full time job and a family of 6.

And lastly, learn to laugh at yourself. It's easy to tell when somebody doesn't take themselves with a grain of salt and can't find ways to see the humor in these discussions from an elevated point of view. Your new Sensei in this quest is Moonglow who is a black belt in aloof jocularity. I love exchanging witty badinage with him and his posts have certainly helped me to laugh at it all.

I hope this helps. I'm not attacking you, just trying to help you see all this from another perspective.

 

[Montrovant]

..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.

In fact, marriage was set up to deal with the birth of children and to make sure they had parents who would protect them the best and provide for them. Long long ago it was figured out that wedlock children do not fare as well as others who have married parents. Mother and father who provide the most balanced/protective role models.

States incentivized marriage in order to reduce the number of wedlock children (children with either a mother or father absent). Now it's incentivizing child-trafficking instead where at least one surrogate parent is surrendering their child for the exchange of money into a situation (sans father or mother) that can be predicted to predispose them to psychological demise. See post #164 CA s Babies For Sale Are Private Surrogacy Contracts The Same As Child-Trafficking Page 17 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Being in wedlock is being married. Hence the phrase 'out of wedlock'. You can't even get the simplest of definitions straight. 'Wedlock children' would mean children of married parents.

 

[Syriusly]

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



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

Your so full of yourself you don't even see that your inability to tolerate other points of view paints your perception so that when you "attack" Christians, it isn't really attacking, but anyone who makes a thread about gays is "attacking" them and is full of hate, bigotry, etc. You literally think your shit doesn't stink

The simplest answer to your emotional rant is- No.

As you are in most cases- you are just wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

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



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

So let's set the record straight because that's the best therapy I can offer. Having different viewpoints is not "hate" and expressing those viewpoints is not "attacking". And there is no such indictment you can direct toward others that can't as easily be directed toward you which is why I posted one of your threads.

Having different viewpoints does not necessarily mean hate- but some viewpoints are indeed indicative of 'hate'.

And feel free to compare my posting to Silhouettes- I welcome such a comparison.

Let me start off- I indict Silhouette for willfully and knowingly lying about a research paper.

Here is the link:
http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

This is a research paper that I first read because Silhouette provided a link to it- and even then she lied about the paper.
How does Silhouette lie about this paper?

• Silhouette regularly refers to this paper as the product of Mayo Clinic- as in "According to the Mayo Clinic"- but it is clear from the paper, that this was a paper written by Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall, and not done in conjunction with the Mayo Clinic, but merely published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings- a professional journal. It is a lie, because I have repeatedly pointed this out- but Silhouette continues to attach the cache of the Mayo Clinic to this paper
• Much more importantly- Silhouette explicitly lies about what the paper says- she claims the paper shows that homosexuals are far more likely to molest children than heterosexuals- and then posts a quote- leaving out the last line which says just the opposite. Below is the quote- Silhouette always quotes the part in red- and always excludes the quote in blue.

The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20
times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men (using a prevalence rate of adult homosexuality
of 2%-4%).5,7,10,19,29,30
This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children,

There is my indictment of Silhouette- you want to show an example of me repeating the same lie for the last 2 years, despite being told repeatedly by multiple posters that the actual words of the citation say just the opposite of what I said the citation says- well I will stand indicted then.

Go for it.

 

[Syriusly]

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



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

And lastly, learn to laugh at yourself. It's easy to tell when somebody doesn't take themselves with a grain of salt and can't find ways to see the humor in these discussions from an elevated point of view. Your new Sensei in this quest is Moonglow who is a black belt in aloof jocularity. I love exchanging witty badinage with him and his posts have certainly helped me to laugh at it all.

I hope this helps. I'm not attacking you, just trying to help you see all this from another perspective.

LOL- I laugh at myself rather regularly.

I sure make mistakes. I have laughed enough times when folks have caught my errors here at USMB.

But I find no humor in Silhouette's attempts to villify homosexuals. I find nothing but gallows humor in the racism of Stevie the racist. Really depends on whom I am responding to- and what the topic is.

 

[Syriusly]

My vote is no. It's the dumbest idea I've heard in a long time.

So according to Lonestar, an Amendment protecting the needs of children over the wants of adults is "a bad idea, the dumbest s/he's heard in a long time"

Don't leave your kids with Lonestar to babysit folks!

There are already laws in place to protect children. I've raised five children to the age of majority as a single father, my wife died giving birth to twins leaving me with them and three other children who were aged 10, 7 and 2. So I've got plenty of experience raising children.

Under Silhouette's proposed amendment of what is best for children- which she says is a married mother and father- you may not have been allowed to raise your children. The state may have decided that they needed to be a with an approved new married and father.

 

[Syriusly]

My vote is no. It's the dumbest idea I've heard in a long time.

So according to Lonestar, an Amendment protecting the needs of children over the wants of adults is "a bad idea, the dumbest s/he's heard in a long time"

Don't leave your kids with Lonestar to babysit folks!

He is not the babysitter who intentionally burnt one of her charges- that would of course- be you.