Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

[danielpalos]

There is no Constitutional basis for denying or disparaging Individual Liberty in favor of public policy; which must constitute public Use.

What's your position on child-protective statutes as dominant or submissive to "individual (adult) Liberty"? For instance, do you think it is more legally weighty to protect children, or to promote adults even when that promotion stands to hurt children (institutionally-depriving them of either a mother or a father in marriage)?

Please describe your answer in intricate logical and legal details. Provide case law to support how the welfare of children is secondary to adults whims around them.

Two parents should be better than one parent. In any case, adults are still responsible for children and not the other way around.

Yes, adults (society who makes laws) ARE responsible for children. Hence why I asked you the question: which laws are dominant; the ones protecing adults' freedoms or those protecting children's essential welfare?. I notice you evaded answering..

..Genders aren't blended. Sorry to inform you. It turns out a child's gender missing "as parent" has detrimental effects in their lives later on. Why would we force states to incentivize maladjusted kids? Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The ones securing Individual Liberty, and freedom of Association and Contract for responsible adults.

In any Case, a King Leonidas study outranks a Prince's Trust Survey.

 

[Skylar]

Government shouldn't be in the business of encouraging, rewarding, or otherwise recognizing in law two people entering into a contract with each other. Be like if th egovernment came out and started saying regular business contracts can only be between a man and woman. That's obviously absurd, yet in-law that's all marriages are. So how does it justify treating a strictly legal contract differently? Religion is the answer.

But they are! Otherwise, Windsor would've never gotten her money. Duh

She got it because there was a statewide deliberation in New York where people (myopically IMHO) there agreed to try the redaction of marriage and use kids as lab rats in the new experiment to deprive boys of a father and girls of a mother; and that was how Windsor's marriage was deemed legal. As it should be: UP TO THE STATES THAT ARE IN CHARGE OF THE FORMATIVE ENVIRONMENT OF KIDS.

That is a fallacy simply for omitting Spartan, policies public.

Then you are saying Windsor should never have gotten her money!

I don't care either way; what I am saying; is that special pleading is no basis to form policies for the general public.

But that is how law is done in the Judicial branch of government! Or are you saying that all regulation and rewards for marriage should be dissolved completely? What if states want to have an incentive program to entice the best formative environment for kids in order to keep them from becoming depressed, indigent, turning to crime and even suicide as fledging adults? Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Prince Trust study doesn't even mention gay marriage. It doesn't mention gays. It doesn't mention gay parenting. It doesn't even measure the effects of any kind of parenting. Nor indicate that a positive same sex role model be a parent.

You hallucinated all of that. In short, the Prince Trust study says nothing you do.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no Constitutional basis for denying or disparaging Individual Liberty in favor of public policy; which must constitute public Use.

What's your position on child-protective statutes as dominant or submissive to "individual (adult) Liberty"? For instance, do you think it is more legally weighty to protect children, or to promote adults even when that promotion stands to hurt children (institutionally-depriving them of either a mother or a father in marriage)?

Please describe your answer in intricate logical and legal details. Provide case law to support how the welfare of children is secondary to adults whims around them.

Two parents should be better than one parent. In any case, adults are still responsible for children and not the other way around.

Yes, adults (society who makes laws) ARE responsible for children.

Then why do you keep advocating policies which would harm children?

 

[Silhouette]

There is no Constitutional basis for denying or disparaging Individual Liberty in favor of public policy; which must constitute public Use.

What's your position on child-protective statutes as dominant or submissive to "individual (adult) Liberty"? For instance, do you think it is more legally weighty to protect children, or to promote adults even when that promotion stands to hurt children (institutionally-depriving them of either a mother or a father in marriage)?

Please describe your answer in intricate logical and legal details. Provide case law to support how the welfare of children is secondary to adults whims around them.

Two parents should be better than one parent. In any case, adults are still responsible for children and not the other way around.

Yes, adults (society who makes laws) ARE responsible for children.

Then why do you keep advocating policies which would harm children?

Children of polygamists? Or just your pet favorites "children of gays" (a physical impossibility). Shouldn't a boy have a right to contact with a fatherly figure? Shouldn't a girl have a right to a motherly figure? Why do you want to deprive them of their rights?

 

[Syriusly]

There is no Constitutional basis for denying or disparaging Individual Liberty in favor of public policy; which must constitute public Use.

What's your position on child-protective statutes as dominant or submissive to "individual (adult) Liberty"? For instance, do you think it is more legally weighty to protect children, or to promote adults even when that promotion stands to hurt children (institutionally-depriving them of either a mother or a father in marriage)?

Please describe your answer in intricate logical and legal details. Provide case law to support how the welfare of children is secondary to adults whims around them.

Two parents should be better than one parent. In any case, adults are still responsible for children and not the other way around.

Yes, adults (society who makes laws) ARE responsible for children.

Then why do you keep advocating policies which would harm children?

Children of polygamists?

Have you suggested policies to harm the children of polygamists? That would be odd since your focus is on harming homosexuals and their families.

Why do you keep advocating policies to harm the children of homosexuals?

 

[Skylar]

Children of polygamists?

Children of same sex parents. Your proposals hurt them and you've already admitted it. Nor have you ever been able to explain how your proposals benefit any child.

So that's all harm. And no benefit. Why would any rational person ever want this done to these children?

Or just your pet favorites "children of gays" (a physical impossibility).

Its entirely possible for gays to have kids. As you well know, there is adoption, surrogacy, artificial insemination, and blended families. The same strategies used by all infertile straight married couples. Yet you never challenge if the children these straight couples raise are their children.

You only question it if their parents are gay. Revealing your double standard and your bias. No thank you.

Shouldn't a boy have a right to contact with a fatherly figure? Shouldn't a girl have a right to a motherly figure? Why do you want to deprive them of their rights?

Who says that a positive same sex role model must be a parent?

There's you....citing you....and who?

Worse, denying gay marriage does nothing to the issue you're lamenting about. If you deny marriage to same sex couples, its not like their children magically have opposite sex parents. All you do is guarantee these children never have married parents.

Which hurts those children and benefits no one. Rendering your proposal worse than useless.

 

[Silhouette]

What have you got against kids of polygamists Skylar?

 

[Syriusly]

What have you got against kids of polygamists Skylar?

Still waiting for you to explain why you want to bring harm to the children of homosexuals.

 

[Skylar]

What have you got against kids of polygamists Skylar?

Laughing......the gay marriage debate not working out for you, huh?

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't be scrambling to change the topic.

 

[Silhouette]

Laughing....still not wanting to address your concern for kids as it applies to kids of polygamists?

 

[Skylar]

Laughing....still not wanting to address your concern for kids as it applies to kids of polygamists?

Polygamy is your argument. Not mine. I'm discussing gay marriage. And you're desperately running from same sex marriage, now refusing to even discuss it.

Shrugs.....your arguments against same sex marriage never amounted to much anyway.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no Constitutional basis for denying or disparaging Individual Liberty in favor of public policy; which must constitute public Use.

What's your position on child-protective statutes as dominant or submissive to "individual (adult) Liberty"? For instance, do you think it is more legally weighty to protect children, or to promote adults even when that promotion stands to hurt children (institutionally-depriving them of either a mother or a father in marriage)?

Please describe your answer in intricate logical and legal details. Provide case law to support how the welfare of children is secondary to adults whims around them.

Two parents should be better than one parent. In any case, adults are still responsible for children and not the other way around.

Yes, adults (society who makes laws) ARE responsible for children.

Then why do you keep advocating policies which would harm children?

Children of polygamists? Or just your pet favorites "children of gays" (a physical impossibility). Shouldn't a boy have a right to contact with a fatherly figure? Shouldn't a girl have a right to a motherly figure? Why do you want to deprive them of their rights?

Why would polygamists have more of a problem with children than a two parent family; it seems several wives could take turns watching the kids, doing housework, or working outside the home.

 

[Silhouette]

Children of polygamists? Or just your pet favorites "children of gays" (a physical impossibility). Shouldn't a boy have a right to contact with a fatherly figure? Shouldn't a girl have a right to a motherly figure? Why do you want to deprive them of their rights?

Why would polygamists have more of a problem with children than a two parent family; it seems several wives could take turns watching the kids, doing housework, or working outside the home.

Exactly. But then again there are objections to polygamy because of dilution of fatherly contact with children he simply doesn't have time to get to know. It's the parent-dilution factor that ultimately is the problem with polygamy. Likewise, gay marriage assures a complete absence of one of the vital genders in parenting: either the father or the mother will be missing 100% of the time. Which is even worse than dilution.

One of the Justices brought up a 2/2 type marriage where two men would marry two women. That would provide plenty of parenting. But I think he was bringing it up as a didactic device to show the gay lawyers that the slippery slope is a very viable point of argument from their opposition; and that the governed most surely must have a say in what marriage means. If not, there can be no meaning and it would be open to any conceivable combination, purely legally speaking. Once the precedent of "whatever around kids without the consent of the governed" is set, there can be no arbitrary limitations.

 

[Skylar]

Children of polygamists? Or just your pet favorites "children of gays" (a physical impossibility). Shouldn't a boy have a right to contact with a fatherly figure? Shouldn't a girl have a right to a motherly figure? Why do you want to deprive them of their rights?

Why would polygamists have more of a problem with children than a two parent family; it seems several wives could take turns watching the kids, doing housework, or working outside the home.

Exactly. But then again there are objections to polygamy because of dilution of fatherly contact with children he simply doesn't have time to get to know. It's the parent-dilution factor that ultimately is the problem with polygamy. Likewise, gay marriage assures a complete absence of one of the vital genders in parenting: either the father or the mother will be missing 100% of the time. Which is even worse than dilution.

Again, you're equating gay marriage with gay parenting. They aren't the same thing. Gay parenting happens regardless of whether or not gay marriage is approved. As the 40,000 children of same sex parents in California alone demonstrate elegantly. And this before gay marriage. Gay parenting and gay marriage are distinct and separate issues.

You fail logically.

Worse, no one is required to have children or be able to have them in order to get married. Rendering children irrelevant to one's ability to get married. You insist we invent a standard to apply only to gays so they can be excluded from marriage. That's an enormous 14th amendment violation.

You fail constitutionally.

And finally, denying marriage to same sex couples only hurts children. As denying marriage to a same sex couple doesn't magically mean that their children have opposite sex parents. it only means that these children will never have married parents. Which hurts these children. While benefiting none.

Your fail on your own standards of welfare to children.

No thank you.

 

[danielpalos]

Children of polygamists? Or just your pet favorites "children of gays" (a physical impossibility). Shouldn't a boy have a right to contact with a fatherly figure? Shouldn't a girl have a right to a motherly figure? Why do you want to deprive them of their rights?

Why would polygamists have more of a problem with children than a two parent family; it seems several wives could take turns watching the kids, doing housework, or working outside the home.

Exactly. But then again there are objections to polygamy because of dilution of fatherly contact with children he simply doesn't have time to get to know. It's the parent-dilution factor that ultimately is the problem with polygamy. Likewise, gay marriage assures a complete absence of one of the vital genders in parenting: either the father or the mother will be missing 100% of the time. Which is even worse than dilution.

One of the Justices brought up a 2/2 type marriage where two men would marry two women. That would provide plenty of parenting. But I think he was bringing it up as a didactic device to show the gay lawyers that the slippery slope is a very viable point of argument from their opposition; and that the governed most surely must have a say in what marriage means. If not, there can be no meaning and it would be open to any conceivable combination, purely legally speaking. Once the precedent of "whatever around kids without the consent of the governed" is set, there can be no arbitrary limitations.

Should we all claim to be bakers and start baking on a for-profit basis to claim religious forms of liberty in childrearing?

 

[mdk]

For someone that is supposed to be taking a break from this forum, Sil sure is pretty active. I am guessing it was a ploy to get all of us off her back so she could post her nonsense unchallenged.

 

[danielpalos]

i think i may be well rested for that other forum.

 

[Skylar]

For someone that is supposed to be taking a break from this forum, Sil sure is pretty active. I am guessing it was a ploy to get all of us off her back so she could post her nonsense unchallenged.

Nope. Its a demonstration of the depth of obsession. All the harm, the stress, the personal cost of posting here.....balanced against the need to attack gays.

The latter is clearly worth the former to Sil. And that's not a good sign.

 

[Silhouette]

With the new law passed in AZ, this subject becomes current again. Windsor said 56 times that states determine marriage, not federal. (read the OP) Is there a duly enacted AZ law that defines in its constitution that marriage can be anything the participants want? Or is it defined between a man and a woman only? Did Obergefell overturn these 56 reiterations in just two years? Or do they still bind?

 

[Silhouette]

Obergefell found it no longer was the states rights to define marriage, overturning Windsor in just two years. And, with a panel where two judges were performing gay marriages publicly (indicating a federal bias towards gay marriage) and where one of those two openly advertised before the Hearing that she'd already made up her mind in favor of federally-mandated gay marriage (Ginsburg).

It is rumored that the Obergefell decision is what killed Justice Scalia, ultimately. He even wrote that it was one of the worst decisions of blatantly obvious judicial activism he'd ever seen. For him it must have been akin to seeing the USSC dissolved and replaced by a kangaroo court.