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

[WorldWatcher]

>

Every case from divorce and family courts that is appealed has to go to a voter referendum.

Thousands and thousands of cases every year determined by referendums on a state ballot?

WTF?


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

>

Every case from divorce and family courts that is appealed has to go to a voter referendum.

Thousands and thousands of cases every year determined by referendums on a state ballot?

WTF?


>>>>

You missed the part about "or judges must be held to the rule"...did you leave that part out on purpose?

Yes....of course you did...

 

[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.

 

[Silhouette]

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.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Shall we kill people that get divorced?

No they have killed each other( figuratively) thanks.

 

[candycorn]

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. The Fag Militia continues to argue that gay couples are merely taking in foster children from failed heterosexual parents, but this is a lie. They want babies because only a baby will complete the false image of family. And they are finding all sorts of creative ways to make that happen.

These immoral assholes never consider how their victim will look longingly at his friend's parents and wish he also had a dad....or a mom. This is the case when a father or mother is missing due to death or incarceration or other vicissitude. But to do this to a child by design is the equivalent of deliberately maiming them in contrast to them being born with a disability. One is unfortunate, the other is cruel and evil.

Probably the same way you were looked at you could tell from their eyes what a disappointment you was, were, are, and always will be.

 

[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.

They aren't in the LGBT community at all and share much of the same opinion I do of gay advocacy groups. They should be the face of gay Americans, not the assholes suing bakers for not baking a cake. They are among the most decent people I know.

They said quite simply that any gay person who wants children should marry the opposite sex and do it naturally. Unlike the selfish gay couples we're talking about here, they actually consider what the child needs instead of what the adults want.

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

 

[Skylar]

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.

If children were genuinely your concern, single parenthood would be you focus. It often produces poorer outcomes for children than 2 parent households. It denies a child of a 'mother and a father',which you two have elevated to constitutional right. And its quite common.

But you don't. Its a passing mention. A 'too'.

Instead, you focus myopically on gays and lesbians. Despite the children of gays and lesbians being fine. Despite households of gays and lesbians producing comparable outcomes of hetero 2 parent families. Despite their situation being comparatively rare.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Every single specific example of a child without a good same sex role model in the Prince Trust study that you love to cite.......had a single parent. Yet you virtually ignore single parenthood, despite it denying a child of a 'mother and a father', being far more common than same sex parenting, and pretty consistently producing poorer outcomes for children.

Instead you focus on gays and lesbians....despite the Prince Trust study never even mentioning them, despite the outcomes for 2 parent gay or lesbian households being comperable to 2 parent hetero households, despite same sex parenting being comparatively rare.

Demonstrating elegantly that your focus isn't children. Its attacking gays. As any child that doesn't let you attack gays is ignored. Including every child raised by a single parent.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

>

Every case from divorce and family courts that is appealed has to go to a voter referendum.

Thousands and thousands of cases every year determined by referendums on a state ballot?

WTF?


>>>>

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.

If children were genuinely your concern, single parenthood would be you focus. It often produces poorer outcomes for children than 2 parent households. It denies a child of a 'mother and a father',which you two have elevated to constitutional right. And its quite common.

But you don't. Its a passing mention. A 'too'.

Instead, you focus myopically on gays and lesbians. Despite the children of gays and lesbians being fine. Despite households of gays and lesbians producing comparable outcomes of hetero 2 parent families. Despite their situation being comparatively rare.

Focusing Myopically on gays and lesbians? It's like you didn't even read my post.

 

[Skylar]

>

Every case from divorce and family courts that is appealed has to go to a voter referendum.

Thousands and thousands of cases every year determined by referendums on a state ballot?

WTF?


>>>>

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.

If children were genuinely your concern, single parenthood would be you focus. It often produces poorer outcomes for children than 2 parent households. It denies a child of a 'mother and a father',which you two have elevated to constitutional right. And its quite common.

But you don't. Its a passing mention. A 'too'.

Instead, you focus myopically on gays and lesbians. Despite the children of gays and lesbians being fine. Despite households of gays and lesbians producing comparable outcomes of hetero 2 parent families. Despite their situation being comparatively rare.

Focusing Myopically on gays and lesbians? It's like you didn't even read my post.

I saw passing mention. And post after post after post about gays and lesbians.

Given how single parenting actually is correlated to poorer outcomes for children, single parenthood does often deny a child a mother and a father, and single parenthood effects orders or magnitude more children, single parenthood would represent the overwhelming majority of your posts if children were your focus.

If attacking gays and lesbians were your focus.....most of your posts on the topic of children would be about gays and lesbians. I'd be happy to take a few minutes to count your recent posts on the topic and tell you how often you've cited gays and lesbians compared to single parents.

Shall we? Lets let the numbers tell us what your priority is: helping children or attacking gays.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'd add a amendment that would give the government the power to fund infrastructure, science, r&d and education like south Korea's government can. It can do so now BUT it is optional...What we need if we wish to remain a world power is this mandated.

 

[Dragonlady]

If spanking a child teaches him not to burn himself on a stove, the gold standard has not been violated. If spanking a child is to vent anger at a glass of spilled milk, then the gold standard is violated. It isn't rocket science.

Hitting a child teaches him or her nothing other than might makes right.

So under your law, the state cannot take arrest a parent or remove them from the home because that would be harmful to the child. And the state must provide health care, dental care and a quality education too. High quality school lunches are a must.

Providing poor children with a good education would also be required and safe neighbourhoods, as well as sports and recreation facilities.

I'm liking all these things. Turn the U.S. Into a child centred country is a really good idea.

 

[Skylar]

If spanking a child teaches him not to burn himself on a stove, the gold standard has not been violated. If spanking a child is to vent anger at a glass of spilled milk, then the gold standard is violated. It isn't rocket science.

Hitting a child teaches him or her nothing other than might makes right.

Depends on the circumstances. I wouldn't use spanking to discipline a child. But I'd paddle their ass if they put themselves in danger, played with fire, messed around with an electrical socket, or the like. It startles the shit out of them and cements the point, especially when you don't do it in any other circumstance.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

>

Every case from divorce and family courts that is appealed has to go to a voter referendum.

Thousands and thousands of cases every year determined by referendums on a state ballot?

WTF?


>>>>

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.

If children were genuinely your concern, single parenthood would be you focus. It often produces poorer outcomes for children than 2 parent households. It denies a child of a 'mother and a father',which you two have elevated to constitutional right. And its quite common.

But you don't. Its a passing mention. A 'too'.

Instead, you focus myopically on gays and lesbians. Despite the children of gays and lesbians being fine. Despite households of gays and lesbians producing comparable outcomes of hetero 2 parent families. Despite their situation being comparatively rare.

Focusing Myopically on gays and lesbians? It's like you didn't even read my post.

I saw passing mention. And post after post after post about gays and lesbians.

Given how single parenting actually is correlated to poorer outcomes for children, single parenthood does often deny a child a mother and a father, and single parenthood effects orders or magnitude more children, single parenthood would represent the overwhelming majority of your posts if children were your focus.

If attacking gays and lesbians were your focus.....most of your posts on the topic of children would be about gays and lesbians. I'd be happy to take a few minutes to count your recent posts on the topic and tell you how often you've cited gays and lesbians compared to single parents.

Shall we? Lets let the numbers tell us what your priority is: helping children or attacking gays.

Shall we count your posts on gays? Why do you think your obsession is sacrosanct and nobody else's is? You dare to cite my focus on gays when your own focus borders on OCD?

I discuss several issues on USMB. You only discuss this, gay on the brain.

 

[Dragonlady]

If spanking a child teaches him not to burn himself on a stove, the gold standard has not been violated. If spanking a child is to vent anger at a glass of spilled milk, then the gold standard is violated. It isn't rocket science.

Hitting a child teaches him or her nothing other than might makes right.

Depends on the circumstances. I wouldn't use spanking to discipline a child. But I'd paddle their ass if they put themselves in danger, played with fire, messed around with an electrical socket, or the like. It startles the shit out of them and cements the point, especially when you don't do it in any other circumstance.

Spanking teaches nothing. It doesn't cement any points. I was spanked as a child. Not often. I thought it dumb. I remember the spankings but not what I did that lead to my being spanked.

Because I thought spanking dumb, I never spanked any of my children. My oldest daughter has 4 boys. They have never been spanked either.

Children who are hit grow up to hit others.

 

[Silhouette]

If spanking a child teaches him not to burn himself on a stove, the gold standard has not been violated. If spanking a child is to vent anger at a glass of spilled milk, then the gold standard is violated. It isn't rocket science.

Hitting a child teaches him or her nothing other than might makes right.

Depends on the circumstances. I wouldn't use spanking to discipline a child. But I'd paddle their ass if they put themselves in danger, played with fire, messed around with an electrical socket, or the like. It startles the shit out of them and cements the point, especially when you don't do it in any other circumstance.

Spanking teaches nothing. It doesn't cement any points. I was spanked as a child. Not often. I thought it dumb. I remember the spankings but not what I did that lead to my being spanked.

Because I thought spanking dumb, I never spanked any of my children. My oldest daughter has 4 boys. They have never been spanked either.

Children who are hit grow up to hit others.

Skylar is correct (a thing I thought I'd never say) and he is illustrating how easy it is to cipher the nuances in this proposed Constitutional Amendment. If you limit corporal punishment for children to just keeping them out of danger that would be far worse to them, then you have acted in their best interest. A story comes to mind of my little niece. She kept acting obnoxiously and going too close to the woodstove when they were visiting. Her parents would bark "stay away from that hot stove! I told you!"...2 minutes later the 4 year old was back, challenging ever closer. Again, more barking. Then the last time she did this (I was sitting silently by watching), she tripped and almost face-planted on the hot stove. Parents continuing to bark, doing nothing, I got up, asked her to hold our her hand. I took her index finger and just touched the very tip of it to the hot stove; whereupon she yanked it back and went wailing away in tears looking alternately at the hot stove and me as "the enemy"

But I'll tell you something, she never did go back anywhere near that stove. And her face is as beautiful today as it was when she was a young girl. I grew up with a kid in our school who was a burn victim. It was horrible to see her every day. Her entire face was nearly burned off and was a mass of scars. So even though my brother and his wife flipped out and quite literally have never trusted me since (they still talk today about the incident with the fingertip on the woodstove), the gold standard of the Proposed Amendment would have been met.

Hot wood stove + child daring near with zero respect for verbal warnings + fingertip pain + face saved = child's best interest. Case dismissed.

There were no adult "wants" in that situation outside my brother and sister in law "wanting" the child to mind without actually being proactive and good parents..ie: their wanting to be lazy and thought well of by their PC peers vs doing what was actually good for the child. They would've failed according to the gold standard if my niece's face was burned.

 

[Skylar]

If spanking a child teaches him not to burn himself on a stove, the gold standard has not been violated. If spanking a child is to vent anger at a glass of spilled milk, then the gold standard is violated. It isn't rocket science.

Hitting a child teaches him or her nothing other than might makes right.

Depends on the circumstances. I wouldn't use spanking to discipline a child. But I'd paddle their ass if they put themselves in danger, played with fire, messed around with an electrical socket, or the like. It startles the shit out of them and cements the point, especially when you don't do it in any other circumstance.

Spanking teaches nothing. It doesn't cement any points. I was spanked as a child. Not often. I thought it dumb. I remember the spankings but not what I did that lead to my being spanked.

My experience is different. I've found it creates a strong association between the act that was dangerous and pain/punishment. And they simply don't do it anymore.

That's a lesson taught. Unless you consider it random coincidence that a child who ignored your admonitions not to crawl up to the stove repeatedly never climbed up on the stove again after getting a spanking.

The odds of your 'random coincidence' version of events being accurate is rather slim.

 

[Skylar]

>

Every case from divorce and family courts that is appealed has to go to a voter referendum.

Thousands and thousands of cases every year determined by referendums on a state ballot?

WTF?


>>>>

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.

If children were genuinely your concern, single parenthood would be you focus. It often produces poorer outcomes for children than 2 parent households. It denies a child of a 'mother and a father',which you two have elevated to constitutional right. And its quite common.

But you don't. Its a passing mention. A 'too'.

Instead, you focus myopically on gays and lesbians. Despite the children of gays and lesbians being fine. Despite households of gays and lesbians producing comparable outcomes of hetero 2 parent families. Despite their situation being comparatively rare.

Focusing Myopically on gays and lesbians? It's like you didn't even read my post.

I saw passing mention. And post after post after post about gays and lesbians.

Given how single parenting actually is correlated to poorer outcomes for children, single parenthood does often deny a child a mother and a father, and single parenthood effects orders or magnitude more children, single parenthood would represent the overwhelming majority of your posts if children were your focus.

If attacking gays and lesbians were your focus.....most of your posts on the topic of children would be about gays and lesbians. I'd be happy to take a few minutes to count your recent posts on the topic and tell you how often you've cited gays and lesbians compared to single parents.

Shall we? Lets let the numbers tell us what your priority is: helping children or attacking gays.

Shall we count your posts on gays? Why do you think your obsession is sacrosanct and nobody else's is? You dare to cite my focus on gays when your own focus borders on OCD?

I discuss several issues on USMB. You only discuss this, gay on the brain.

So you don't want me to count your posts on gays in comparison to your posts on single parents in regards to the welfare of children?

I didn't think so. If children were your focus, you'd have posted far, far more about single parenting. As its correlated to poorer outcomes for children and is quite common. Instead, you focus on gays and lesbians, despite 2 parent gay and lesbian households producing outcomes that are comparable to 2 parent hetero households....and same sex parenting being comparably rare.

Give a choice between attacking gays and protecting children......your priority is attacking gays.

No thank you.

 

[Silhouette]

Skylar, please try to stick to the subject.