Judge Roy Moore of Alabama Can Win If He Does This: Argues For Alabama's Children

[ogibillm]

i agree that children derive benefits from parents that are married. they have more stable homes, they have two parents to look after them. they are less likely to live in poverty. seems like a good reason to support gay marriage...

Good, we agree. Psychologists and youth outreach specialists say that one of the benefits of a married home for children is regular contact by the child of both a mother and father.

God some bad news for you: Gay marriage does not provide that vital benefit and leaves children involved instead with a lifelong-void as a matter of a legal binding contract...that...affects children negatively.

Oopsies.

according to whom?

even if it were the case, children still are not a part of the marriage contract, and gay people, married or not, could still have children.

and you still haven't explained how the court recognized my 25 year old friend and his older siblings when his parents divorced. i mean if they were part of the marriage contract shouldn't they have representation in the proceedings?

 

[Silhouette]

i agree that children derive benefits from parents that are married. they have more stable homes, they have two parents to look after them. they are less likely to live in poverty. seems like a good reason to support gay marriage...

Good, we agree. Psychologists and youth outreach specialists say that one of the benefits of a married home for children is regular contact by the child of both a mother and father.

God some bad news for you: Gay marriage does not provide that vital benefit and leaves children involved instead with a lifelong-void as a matter of a legal binding contract...that...affects children negatively.

Oopsies.

according to whom?

even if it were the case, children still are not a part of the marriage contract, and gay people, married or not, could still have children.

and you still haven't explained how the court recognized my 25 year old friend and his older siblings when his parents divorced. i mean if they were part of the marriage contract shouldn't they have representation in the proceedings?

You realize just saying that someone isn't an implied beneficiary of a contract doesn't make it so? Your ilk has this funny penchant where they believe that if they repeat a falsehood enough, even longstanding law evaporates before their very eyes to their advantage. You agreed with me that children derive benefits from marriage. Justice Kennedy agrees with me that children derive benefits from marriage. Up until June 2015, PARAMOUNT of those benefits was the legal bond of a mother and father for the child's benefit. Gay marriage DESTROYED that benefit without any mitigating remedy. The void is there. The void is complete. And the void exists for the duration of the child's life as a matter of a contractual term that was changed to children's detriment.

Here's what Obergefell said to children in its essence: "Now via marriage, the thing that used to guarantee you both a mother and father , you can be DIVORCED from the hope of EVER having either a mother or father, for life, as a legal arrangement. Enjoy the void which will statistically set you at a disadvantage to your peers". And, that is an illegal Finding because we know in law that no contract can exist to a child's detriment.

I had a dream last night where I walked into a classroom where there was a group of adults who were teaching the kids that gay marriage is "OK". The adults were obviously reluctant to do so, but they just as obviously had walking orders to do so from some new state law somewhere. It was also obvious this was the first time they were holding this class. I interrupted the beginning of the lecture to the kids, who also were squirming in their chairs at the idea of gay marriage, two men or two women marrying as "the new family". When I interrupted the adults speaking, loudly and in front of all the children I asked them if I could ask them a kind of survey question about the topic they were discussing. They all were caught off guard, but instead of looking like dicks in front of the kids for denying me, they all assented they would answer. I said "raise your hand if you had a mother and father both". Every adult of the 10 or so in the panel raised their hands. Every single one. And I thought to myself how amazing it was that none of them didn't raise their hand. So the next thought I had was "oh, right....they're college educated; which means statistically they came from a stable home; which...following logic and known fact further...means they had BOTH a mother and father in their daily lives.

And on that note, I'll leave you with a study to read: the largest of its kind that reflects exactly what I found in my dream: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

 

[mdk]

Even in your dreams you're a homophobic weirdo.

 

[ogibillm]

Silhouette how did the court recognize my adult friend and his adult siblings in the divorce of their parents?

 

[ogibillm]

Even in your dreams you're a homophobic weirdo.

i dreamed last night i got on the boat to heaven...

 

[Silhouette]

The point of my dream being that all the college educated people said they had had both a mother and father. Imagine being a girl in a home with two gay men? Who is your mentor? And a boy in a lesbian home? Who will be his mentor? We all know the statistics connected to boys raised without fathers..

And the stigma at school of such children among their peers. And hence in the dream where it was mandatory to teach gay marriage "as normal" in schools. Children being raised by two people of the same gender will be not only deprived of a vital mentor, they will get the daily message from the most important adults in their lives: your gender doesn't matter (or, conversely, your gender is the ONLY one that matters). Such is the gay rejection of the opposite gender, that they refuse to even have sex with the gender that sex evolved as a purpose for. That's not going to be an ignored lesson in the growing child's mind as he/she learns about the purpose of sex. "Wow, my gender is that revolting that they would choose to have sex with each other's anuses??" That's going to leave an impression on a little girl in a gay male home. And her peers are going to say to her, "which one is your mommy?" And for that she will say "I will never have a mommy".

So, my dream drove home the point of where this is all ultimately going: in order to patch up the grotesque contractual harm done to children via "gay marriage", we'll have to indoctrinate at least the next three generations that "gay marriage is perfectly normal". And, since there is no way to fill the void of the missing gender so vital as a role model, we will have to say to those children "sorry, second best for you and never more".

 

[ogibillm]

The point of my dream being that all the college educated people said they had had both a mother and father. Imagine being a girl in a home with two gay men? Who is your mentor? And a boy in a lesbian home? Who will be his mentor? We all know the statistics connected to boys raised without fathers..

And the stigma at school of such children among their peers. And hence in the dream where it was mandatory to teach gay marriage "as normal" in schools. Children being raised by two people of the same gender will be not only deprived of a vital mentor, they will get the daily message from the most important adults in their lives: your gender doesn't matter (or, conversely, your gender is the ONLY one that matters). Such is the gay rejection of the opposite gender, that they refuse to even have sex with the gender that sex evolved as a purpose for. That's not going to be an ignored lesson in the growing child's mind as he/she learns about the purpose of sex. "Wow, my gender is that revolting that they would choose to have sex with each other's anuses??" That's going to leave an impression on a little girl in a gay male home. And her peers are going to say to her, "which one is your mommy?" And for that she will say "I will never have a mommy".

So, my dream drove home the point of where this is all ultimately going: in order to patch up the grotesque contractual harm done to children via "gay marriage", we'll have to indoctrinate at least the next three generations that "gay marriage is perfectly normal". And, since there is no way to fill the void of the missing gender so vital as a role model, we will have to say to those children "sorry, second best for you and never more".

do you have a solution for single parents?

and you haven't addressed how not allowing gays to marry will in any way benefit children.

you also haven't told me how the court recognized the participation of my adult friend and his adult siblings in the divorce of his parents

 

[Silhouette]

do you have a solution for single parents? and you haven't addressed how not allowing gays to marry will in any way benefit children...

Yes. Marriage. It used to be the standard for single people to provide the missing parent.

You seem to be confusing non-contractual situations for contractual situations. There is no contract of a single parent fixing the terms of their single status for life. Please understand this difference, because a court will.

And, how is not allowing polygamists or mother/son combos to marry going to benefit their children? We don't set laws based on lawbreakers. We set laws in the particular instance of marriage with respect to what the majority defines it to be in the separate states. Because if polygamists and incest couples can still be denied marriage in any state, even if that "harms their children", then marriage is still up to the states and Obergefell is defunct.

 

[mdk]

So, my dream drove home the point of where this is all ultimately going: in order to patch up the grotesque contractual harm done to children via "gay marriage", we'll have to indoctrinate at least the next three generations that "gay marriage is perfectly normal". And, since there is no way to fill the void of the missing gender so vital as a role model, we will have to say to those children "sorry, second best for you and never more

You keep laboring under delusion that the missing gender role model can only be found in a parent. The Prince's Trust shows that to be completely untrue. That role model can be another family member (as it was in your household), a coach, a teacher, a member of the church, a neighbor, a boss, etc.

 

[mdk]

do you have a solution for single parents?

Yes. Marriage. It used to be the standard for single people to provide the missing parent.

A standard that you don't even follow. There's always hope, though. lol

 

[ogibillm]

do you have a solution for single parents?

Yes. Marriage. It used to be the standard for single people to provide the missing parent.

ok.

do you expect gay parents to stop being gay and marry someome of the opposite sex?

how does allowing gay couples with children to marry do anything but benefit those children?

if a gay couple does not have children should they not be allowed to marry because someday they might and as you say that child is entitled to the benefits of marriage?

how did the court recognize my adult friend and his adult siblings as parties in his parents' divorce?

 

[Silhouette]

do you have a solution for single parents? and you haven't addressed how not allowing gays to marry will in any way benefit children...

Yes. Marriage. It used to be the standard for single people to provide the missing parent.

You seem to be confusing non-contractual situations for contractual situations. There is no contract of a single parent fixing the terms of their single status for life. Please understand this difference, because a court will.

And, how is not allowing polygamists or mother/son combos to marry going to benefit their children? We don't set laws based on lawbreakers. We set laws in the particular instance of marriage with respect to what the majority defines it to be in the separate states. Because if polygamists and incest couples can still be denied marriage in any state, even if that "harms their children", then marriage is still up to the states and Obergefell is defunct.
*******
Forgot to add: have you checked into the 14th Amendment with respect to polygamy and incest orientations?

 

[ogibillm]

polygamy and incest is illegal. homosexuality is not

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Since when do laws of the majority interfere with someone's "civil rights" to innate sexuality or intimate choices? You might want to give Obergefell a read again..If you insist children are being harmed by their parents not marrying, you have a legal obligation to insure that harm stops via their parents being able to marry.

do you have a solution for single parents?

Yes. Marriage. It used to be the standard for single people to provide the missing parent.

ok.

do you expect gay parents to stop being gay and marry someome of the opposite sex?

Not anymore than I would expect a polygamist man to stop lusting after multiple women he's having children with, nor any more than I would expect a mother/son etc. combo who are having that genetic-attraction orientation also known as "incest". Yet neither of those types of marriages would be legal. Do you agree?

 

[ogibillm]

^^ Since when do laws of the majority interfere with someone's "civil rights" to innate sexuality or intimate choices? You might want to give Obergefell a read again..

do you have a solution for single parents?

Yes. Marriage. It used to be the standard for single people to provide the missing parent.

ok.

do you expect gay parents to stop being gay and marry someome of the opposite sex?

Not anymore than I would expect a polygamist man to stop lusting after multiple women he's having children with, nor any more than I would expect a mother/son etc. combo who are having that genetic-attraction orientation also known as "incest". Yet neither of those types of marriages would be legal. Do you agree?

again, polygamy and incest are illegal.

so you would deny the child of a gay parent the stabilty of married parents because why?

 

[Silhouette]

again, polygamy and incest are illegal.

so you would deny the child of a gay parent the stabilty of married parents because why?

No, they're not. Not if children are being harmed by their parents not being able to marry. And not if they are the intimate choices and lifestyles consenting adults have agreed to. Is it more important to harm their children or to allow polyamorist or incest orientation with children to marry?

 

[mdk]

You seem to be confusing non-contractual situations for contractual situations. There is no contract of a single parent fixing the terms of their single status for life. Please understand this difference, because a court will.

Children are not a party to a marriage contract in any state in this nation. Why would the courts understand the difference when what you claim isn't recognized in any state? The courts are bound by the actual law, not whatever you dream up.

 

[Silhouette]

Kennedy cited his reasons for passing Obergefell ( I say "passing" because what the Court did was legislate, not interpret; they added language to the Constitution in order to interpret their Finding). His reasons were "so that children's parents could be married". If polyamorists or incest couples have children, would Kennedy's logic mean then he could also defy the states' sovereignty and force them to "help those children" by allowing their parents to marry as well?

When you say you have a heart to help children, does that mean just some special ones, or all of them?

And, does that also mean you set up a legal bind where they will not know either a mother or father for life?

I suspect Justice Scalia knew all of this as a very sharp legal mind. It's my personal theory that Obergefell ultimately killed Justice Scalia. I think he felt powerless to stop one of the most damaging legal decisions in human history.

 

[mdk]

When you say you have a heart to help children, does that mean just some special ones, or all of them?

All they need is the hope that their parents will someday get married and by golly that's good enough for me!

 

[Silhouette]

When you say you have a heart to help children, does that mean just some special ones, or all of them?

All they need is the hope that their parents will someday get married and by golly that's good enough for me!

As long as there is no legal bind keeping them away from the missing parent, then there isn't an application of contract law to remedy the situation. But you know as well as I do that no contract may bind a child to his detriment. So "gay marriage" is a real problem legally.