Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

[Bob Blaylock]

The idea that all definitions remain immutable and can never change is provably false.

I never claimed that.

But marriage is what it is, .

Marriage is what it is.

Webster:

• the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife
• : a similar relationship between people of the same sex
• 
  : a ceremony in which two people are married to each other

Oxford English Dictionary
The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:

Marriage is what it is- and in the United States- both legally- and linguistically- it is a legally recognized union between two persons of either gender.

Marriage will never be anything other than between a man and a woman. It is madness to declare otherwise.

Madness, established in law, is still madness.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

When were children asked or represented as to their unique implicit share in the marriage contract? Children want a mother and father. The poll is clear. Why do you want to hurt children?

Wrong-wingers are fond of declaring that they pursue the policies that they do “for the good of the children”, even when those policies are overtly harmful to the interests of the children about whose interest the liberals profess concern.

 

[Skylar]

When were children asked or represented as to their unique implicit share in the marriage contract? Children want a mother and father. The poll is clear. Why do you want to hurt children?

Wrong-wingers are fond of declaring that they pursue the policies that they do “for the good of the children”, even when those policies are overtly harmful to the interests of the children about whose interest the liberals profess concern.

Save of course that denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help a single child. But instead hurts children by the 10s of thousands.

 

[Skylar]

The idea that all definitions remain immutable and can never change is provably false.

I never claimed that.

But marriage is what it is, .

Marriage is what it is.

Webster:

• the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife
• : a similar relationship between people of the same sex
• 
  : a ceremony in which two people are married to each other

Oxford English Dictionary
The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:

Marriage is what it is- and in the United States- both legally- and linguistically- it is a legally recognized union between two persons of either gender.

Marriage will never be anything other than between a man and a woman. It is madness to declare otherwise.

Except that it isn't.

Madness, established in law, is still madness.

Unless you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. In which case your declarations are meaningless.

The argument of you and your ilk has predictably degenerated into the same intellectually void fallacy: hopelessly trying to convince us that your subjective opinions are objective facts.

Nope.

 

[Asclepias]

The idea that all definitions remain immutable and can never change is provably false.

I never claimed that.

But marriage is what it is, .

Marriage is what it is.

Webster:

• the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife
• : a similar relationship between people of the same sex
• 
  : a ceremony in which two people are married to each other

Oxford English Dictionary
The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:

Marriage is what it is- and in the United States- both legally- and linguistically- it is a legally recognized union between two persons of either gender.

Marriage will never be anything other than between a man and a woman. It is madness to declare otherwise.

Madness, established in law, is still madness.

Marriage is a legal term. Your denial is still madness.

 

[Silhouette]

When were children asked or represented as to their unique implicit share in the marriage contract? Children want a mother and father. The poll is clear. Why do you want to hurt children?

Wrong-wingers are fond of declaring that they pursue the policies that they do “for the good of the children”, even when those policies are overtly harmful to the interests of the children about whose interest the liberals profess concern.

What the LGBT cult has done is milk the angst of children (gay teen suicides earlier on...they quit that..."children of gays NEED their parents to be married"...Kennedy swallowed that one hook line and sinker) in order to shove their agenda on the People without proper adjudication. For instance, children had no representation for their unique implicit share of the enjoyments of the marriage contract (mother/father). The Hearing omitted their (collective, over time, which is how Decisions affect our world) interests and instead revised the contract to omit their previous enjoyments based on the whining of adult gays who wanted the focus of broad binding law to focus JUST on the kids caught up in their lifestyle....

...And since a contract assuring vital (mom/dad) terms to a child cannot be amended to exclude those vital elements (infants/necessities & contract law: see "Infant Doctrine", also New York vs Ferber USSC 1982), any 'gay marriage' contract that represents itself also as a 'parenting contract/rights' is void. It isn't merely 'voidable' upon challenge. Contract law says it is already void before its ink is dry... When children are involved implicitly in a contract, its terms may not contain conditions that are onerous to them, even when adults are exercising civil rights (NY v Ferber 1982). Denying a child as a matter of binding contract, a father or mother for life "in marriage" is onerous to the word "children". Not merely "just the children caught up in gay lifestyles". Because as the cult expands its ranks over time, more and more and more children will bear this burden that is psychologically-harmful, if the law says to behavior/fad prone adults "go ahead and do what you like with this children's contract...insert your own terms.."

It is said in in infants and contract law "enter into a contract with children at your own peril" because children involved in contracts are the dominant party...More often than not, they can't be punished for breach, but adults always can. Moreover, adults cannot include contractual terms that ever harm children. Any such contract is immediately void.

Marriage is a legal term. Your denial is still madness.

Yes, but WHY is it a legal term? It was invented to cure the ills of children missing either a father or mother....for over a thousand years... over 89% of the people polled here agree with me that it is important for children to have both a mother and father.

 

[mdk]

What the LGBT cult has done is milk the angst of children (gay teen suicides earlier on...they quit that..."children of gays NEED their parents to be married"...Kennedy swallowed that one hook line and sinker) in order to shove their agenda on the People without proper adjudication. For instance, children had no representation for their unique implicit share of the enjoyments of the marriage contract (mother/father). The Hearing omitted their (collective, over time, which is how Decisions affect our world) interests and instead revised the contract to omit their previous enjoyments based on the whining of adult gays who wanted the focus of broad binding law to focus JUST on the kids caught up in their lifestyle....

...And since a contract assuring vital (mom/dad) terms to a child cannot be amended to exclude those vital elements (infants/necessities & contract law: see "Infant Doctrine", also New York vs Ferber USSC 1982), any 'gay marriage' contract that represents itself also as a 'parenting contract/rights' is void. It isn't merely 'voidable' upon challenge. Contract law says it is already void before its ink is dry... When children are involved implicitly in a contract, its terms may not contain conditions that are onerous to them, even when adults are exercising civil rights (NY v Ferber 1982). Denying a child as a matter of binding contract, a father or mother for life "in marriage" is onerous to the word "children". Not merely "just the children caught up in gay lifestyles". Because as the cult expands its ranks over time, more and more and more children will bear this burden that is psychologically-harmful, if the law says to behavior/fad prone adults "go ahead and do what you like with this children's contract...insert your own terms.."

It is said in in infants and contract law "enter into a contract with children at your own peril" because children involved in contracts are the dominant party...More often than not, they can't be punished for breach, but adults always can. Moreover, adults cannot include contractual terms that ever harm children. Any such contract is immediately void.

Instead of just mindlessly repeating the same dumb shit ad infinitum, why don't you offer your solution to this problem you've been obsessing about for years? What is your end game here? Time for you to run away now.

 

[Silhouette]

Instead of just mindlessly repeating the same dumb shit ad infinitum, why don't you offer your solution to this problem you've been obsessing about for years? What is your end game here? Time for you to run away now.

Won't be running away. The solution is for society to have a thorough conversation about ALL the parties to a marriage contract, what their unique enjoyments were/are to that contract, and why the contract was invented in the first place...as well as how states benefit fiscally from giving incentives in tax breaks for marrieds to insure the product of marriage (children) does not grow up to be in prisons, mental wards, on drugs or indigent: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

After this conversation, then states decide. End game.

 

[Asclepias]

Instead of just mindlessly repeating the same dumb shit ad infinitum, why don't you offer your solution to this problem you've been obsessing about for years? What is your end game here? Time for you to run away now.

Won't be running away. The solution is for society to have a thorough conversation about ALL the parties to a marriage contract, what their unique enjoyments were/are to that contract, and why the contract was invented in the first place...as well as how states benefit fiscally from giving incentives in tax breaks for marrieds to insure the product of marriage (children) does not grow up to be in prisons, mental wards, on drugs or indigent: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

After this conversation, then states decide. End game.

Give it a rest. Its the law in all 50 states dummy.

 

[mdk]

Instead of just mindlessly repeating the same dumb shit ad infinitum, why don't you offer your solution to this problem you've been obsessing about for years? What is your end game here? Time for you to run away now.

Won't be running away. The solution is for society to have a thorough conversation about ALL the parties to a marriage contract, what their unique enjoyments were/are to that contract, and why the contract was invented in the first place...as well as how states benefit fiscally from giving incentives in tax breaks for marrieds to insure the product of marriage (children) does not grow up to be in prisons, mental wards, on drugs or indigent: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

After this conversation, then states decide. End game.

So you opted for the mindlessly repeating the same bullshit again. Too funny.

Ending gay marriage in no way stops gays from raising children. Again, what's your end game? What would you love to see your state accomplish?

Quit tap dancing. We've all seen this number already.

 

[Silhouette]

Give it a rest. Its the law in all 50 states dummy.

Not if it violates contractual terms children found necessary. Then there is no law that binds anyone to follow Obergefell. Pay attention here because you will read this in print again: Adults CANNOT change the terms of a contract they implicitly share with children to the children's detriment. That is supported in the Infant's Doctrine re: necessities in contracts with children AND the Finding of New York vs Ferber (USSC 1982) where it was Found that even if an adult enjoys an unquestioned civil right, rock solid like the 1st Amendment to free speech, if that right harms a child physically or psychologically, the adult does not enjoy that right.

You're going to hear more of this in the future, you might as well study up on it now..

 

[Syriusly]

The idea that all definitions remain immutable and can never change is provably false.

I never claimed that.

But marriage is what it is, .

Marriage is what it is.

Webster:

• the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife
• : a similar relationship between people of the same sex
• 
  : a ceremony in which two people are married to each other

Oxford English Dictionary
The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:

Marriage is what it is- and in the United States- both legally- and linguistically- it is a legally recognized union between two persons of either gender.

Marriage will never be anything other than between a man and a woman. It is madness to declare otherwise.

Madness, established in law, is still madness.

Actually madness is denying reality.

Which is what you are doing.

Reality is that same gender couples are legally marrying.

The most respected dictionaries in the English language say that they are married.

Who doesn't? an anonymous nobody on the internet- you.

 

[Skylar]

When were children asked or represented as to their unique implicit share in the marriage contract? Children want a mother and father. The poll is clear. Why do you want to hurt children?

Wrong-wingers are fond of declaring that they pursue the policies that they do “for the good of the children”, even when those policies are overtly harmful to the interests of the children about whose interest the liberals profess concern.

What the LGBT cult has done is milk the angst of children (gay teen suicides earlier on...they quit that..."children of gays NEED their parents to be married"...Kennedy swallowed that one hook line and sinker) in order to shove their agenda on the People without proper adjudication.

Save of course that your concept of 'proper adjudication' is just you making shit up. None of the 'requirements' you've imagined for 'proper adjudication' actually exist. No, 'all children' aren't required to have a 'representative' at a Supreme Court hearing lest it be a 'mistrial'. There has never been a representative for 'all children' at any Supreme Court hearing. Ever. Nor is a hearing a trial. Making a 'mistrial' an impossibility.

You simply have no idea how our law works.

You're also just making shit up regarding Kennedy. Neither the Windsor decision nor the Obergefell ruling even mention suicide. Nor have you ever bothered t read the Obergefell ruling. Yet have no idea what Kennedy's basis was. But that doesn't stop you from offering your imagination as Kennedy's opinion.

Which, of course, it isn't. No one is.

...And since a contract assuring vital (mom/dad) terms to a child cannot be amended to exclude those vital elements (infants/necessities & contract law: see "Infant Doctrine", also New York vs Ferber USSC 1982), any 'gay marriage' contract that represents itself also as a 'parenting contract/rights' is void. It isn't merely 'voidable' upon challenge. Contract law says it is already void before its ink is dry... When children are involved implicitly in a contract, its terms may not contain conditions that are onerous to them, even when adults are exercising civil rights (NY v Ferber 1982). Denying a child as a matter of binding contract, a father or mother for life "in marriage" is onerous to the word "children". Not merely "just the children caught up in gay lifestyles". Because as the cult expands its ranks over time, more and more and more children will bear this burden that is psychologically-harmful, if the law says to behavior/fad prone adults "go ahead and do what you like with this children's contract...insert your own terms.."

Ferber never finds that same sex marriage hurts children, or even mentions marriage. It was a case about child pornography. You've literally imagined passages in the ruling that don't exist. Worse, you've ignored the explicit findings of the Supreme Court on the harm caused to children by not recognizing same sex marriage;

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....

....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

By your own pseudo-legal argument regarding Ferber, the Supreme Court should have done exactly what it did: recognize same sex marriage. As not recognizing same sex marriage harms children. While recognizing same sex marriage benefits them.

Your 'argument' is to ignore the explicit findings of the Supreme Court on the matter....and replace it with your imagination. Then laughably insist that the Supreme Court is bound to your imagination.

Um, no. It isn't. No one is.

It is said in in infants and contract law "enter into a contract with children at your own peril" because children involved in contracts are the dominant party...More often than not, they can't be punished for breach, but adults always can. Moreover, adults cannot include contractual terms that ever harm children. Any such contract is immediately void.

You're citing entertainment law for explicit contracts that obligate children, like contracts for child actors. No law nor court recognizes the marriage of parents as such a contract for any child. Nor have you ever been able to cite a single legal source that says this.

The only one saying that a marriage of parents is a minor contract for children....is you. Citing yourself. And you're nobody.

Again, your imagination creates no legal obligations for anyone. Get used to the idea.

 

[Syriusly]

Give it a rest. Its the law in all 50 states dummy.

Not if it violates contractual terms children found necessary. Then there is no law that binds anyone to follow Obergefell. .

There is no 'contractual terms'.

Tell Kim Davis all about how nobody has to follow Obergefell.

 

[mdk]

Give it a rest. Its the law in all 50 states dummy.

Not if it violates contractual terms children found necessary. Then there is no law that binds anyone to follow Obergefell. Pay attention here because you will read this in print again: Adults CANNOT change the terms of a contract they implicitly share with children to the children's detriment. That is supported in the Infant's Doctrine re: necessities in contracts with children AND the Finding of New York vs Ferber (USSC 1982) where it was Found that even if an adult enjoys an unquestioned civil right, rock solid like the 1st Amendment to free speech, if that right harms a child physically or psychologically, the adult does not enjoy that right.

You're going to hear more of this in the future, you might as well study up on it now..

Rinse and Repeat.

 

[Syriusly]

When were children asked or represented as to their unique implicit share in the marriage contract? Children want a mother and father. The poll is clear. Why do you want to hurt children?

Wrong-wingers are fond of declaring that they pursue the policies that they do “for the good of the children”, even when those policies are overtly harmful to the interests of the children about whose interest the liberals profess concern.

What the LGBT cult has done is milk the angst of children (gay teen suicides earlier on..r.

What the cult of gay hatred as established by Silhouette does is not give a damn about the health of children- just as she doesn't give a damn about gay teen suicides.

Remember- preventing two parents of the same gender from marriage has only one effect on children: it harms their children.

Since Silhouette spends inordinate amount of time promoting this- she clearly wants to harm the children of gay couples- as much as she wants to harm gays themselves.

 

[Syriusly]

Instead of just mindlessly repeating the same dumb shit ad infinitum, why don't you offer your solution to this problem you've been obsessing about for years? What is your end game here? Time for you to run away now.

After this conversation, then states decide. End game.

The states don't get to 'decide' to violate the United States Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

Give it a rest. Its the law in all 50 states dummy.

You're going to hear more of this in the future, you might as well study up on it now..

We will be hearing the same crap from you over and over.

Everyone else is moving on to real issues.

 

[Skylar]

Give it a rest. Its the law in all 50 states dummy.

Not if it violates contractual terms children found necessary.

Which marriage doesn't. As no court nor law recognize marriage as a minor contract for children. Nor does any law nor court recognize children being married to their parents.

You made both up. And your imagination isn't 'contract law'. Its just you offering us pseudo-legal nonsense.

Then there is no law that binds anyone to follow Obergefell. Pay attention here because you will read this in print again: Adults CANNOT change the terms of a contract they implicitly share with children to the children's detriment.

You forgot one minor detail: nothing you said is actually reflected in the law. Show us any legal source that recognizes the marriage of parents as a minor contract for children.

You can't. As no law nor court does. The only one insisting that marriage is a minor contract for children....is you citing yourself. And you're nobody. Your imagination doesn't define any law or obligate anyone.

As for 'reading this in print', your legal predictions have always been wrong. You've never once accurately predicted the outcome of any case. And your every attempt to tell us how the court will rule has been laughably, utterly wrong.

Making your latest prediction based on the same meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish just more meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[AceRothstein]

Can all Sil created threads automatically route to the Rubber Room? Thanks.