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

[Skylar]

It only works to confirm Sil's bias.

Don't forget the rest of the 80-90%'s "bias" also inevitable. Though one man's "bias" is another man's "clear majority".

Did you forget that your poll asks nothing about marriage....and yet you're babbling about marriage?

 

[Inevitable]

It only works to confirm Sil's bias.

Don't forget the rest of the 80-90%'s "bias" also inevitable. Though one man's "bias" is another man's "clear majority".

that imprisoning of a child hyperbole isn't going to work. We aren't talking about imprisoning a child or taking them away from their parents.

You're figures are meaningless

 

[Inevitable]

It only works to confirm Sil's bias.

Don't forget the rest of the 80-90%'s "bias" also inevitable. Though one man's "bias" is another man's "clear majority".

Did you forget that your poll asks nothing about marriage....and yet you're babbling about marriage?

Dishonest misrepresentation of data doesn't ever seem to be the foundation of a good argument

 

[Skylar]

It only works to confirm Sil's bias.

Don't forget the rest of the 80-90%'s "bias" also inevitable. Though one man's "bias" is another man's "clear majority".

Did you forget that your poll asks nothing about marriage....and yet you're babbling about marriage?

Dishonest misrepresentation of data doesn't ever seem to be the foundation of a good argument

Without the dishonest misrepresentation of data, Sil's posts would be little more than punctuation.

 

[Silhouette]

Without the dishonest misrepresentation of data, Sil's posts would be little more than punctuation.

What "dishonest misrepresentation"? Are you saying that people can't read the poll at the top of this page?

89.2 % of people think that not having gay marriage is important to children. Where "gay marriage' = "children being without either a mother or father for life as a contractual imposition". And yes, anyone can draw that conclusion because it is factually correct that "gay marriage" does this to kids 100% of the time..

 

[Skylar]

Without the dishonest misrepresentation of data, Sil's posts would be little more than punctuation.

What "dishonest misrepresentation"? Are you saying that people can't read the poll at the top of this page?

You've represented this poll as an opposition to gay marriage. It doesn't even mention marriage. Yet you still try to misreprsent it: Watch, in the very next sentence after the one I just quoted, you do it again:

89.2 % of people think that not having gay marriage is important to children.

Your poll doesn't even mention gay marriage. Or marriage of any kind. Yet you lie and say that its results are those who think 'not having gay marriage is important to children'.

You can't help yourself. Your compulsive obsession to lie about gay people is *way* outside your ability to control. But not outside our ability to point and laugh at.

Where "gay marriage' = "children being without either a mother or father for life as a contractual imposition".

Nope. Another misrepresentation. You're railing against same sex *parenting*. Not same sex marriage. As marriage doesn't define the gender of your parents. Nor is it necessary to start a family. Its simply beneficial to the children to have married parents.

Recognize gay marriage or deny gays marriage....same sex parents are still same sex parents. And denying them marriage doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children will never have married parents.

Which hurts those children and help none.

Denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't remedy *anything* you're complaining about. While denying marriage to same sex parents does hurt children by the hundreds of thousands.

All of which you know. But you intentionally misrepresent.

 

[Inevitable]

Without the dishonest misrepresentation of data, Sil's posts would be little more than punctuation.

What "dishonest misrepresentation"? Are you saying that people can't read the poll at the top of this page?

89.2 % of people think that not having gay marriage is important to children. Where "gay marriage' = "children being without either a mother or father for life as a contractual imposition". And yes, anyone can draw that conclusion because it is factually correct that "gay marriage" does this to kids 100% of the time..

You are doing some reaching.

 

[Silhouette]

"My poll doesn't mention gay marriage"...waa waa waa waaaaaa. Loving v Virginia didn't mention gay marriage either. Yet you held it up like a victory flag as your key case law for winning Obergefell.

If gay marriage does not provide either a mother or father for life, and if 89% of Americans think children having both a mother and father for life is important, then, how do you suppose those people would wake up to feel if it was pointed out to them clearly and succinctly what they might not have considered: "Oh, yeah...hey..wait a minute..!"

All it takes is a loud enough amplifier.

 

[Katzndogz]

Nothing provides a child with a mother or a father for life. There is no provision in American law for contractual imposition. The closest we come is a third party beneficiary contract. That's where two parties enter into a contract for the benefit of a third party.

Here is where you have gone totally off the rails. It's thinking that having both a mother and a father is necessary to raising a functional adult. I think so. You think so. A lot of people think so. Not enough people think so. The furthest the majority will go is saying that two parents are necessary to raise a child into a functional adult. And two parents aren't even necessary for that.

 

[Skylar]

"My poll doesn't mention gay marriage"...waa waa waa waaaaaa.

No, it doesn't. You lie about it constantly.

You can't help yourself.

Loving v Virginia didn't mention gay marriage either. Yet you held it up like a victory flag as your key case law for winning Obergefell.

Yet it certainly mentioned marriage and unconstitutional restrictions upon it. Which is what the court's cited it as.

And I held it up as one of the many, many examples of my understanding of the Windsor case.....and my accurate predictions on the outcome of Obergefell. And one of the many, many examples of your utter lack of understanding in the Windsor case. And your laughably inaccurate predictions on the Obergefell ruling.

Remember, you're *always* wrong in your legal predictions. Your record is one of perfect failure.

If gay marriage does not provide either a mother or father for life, and if 89% of Americans think children having both a mother and father for life is important, then, how do you suppose those people would wake up to feel if it was pointed out to them clearly and succinctly what they might not have considered: "Oh, yeah...hey..wait a minute..!"

Nope. That's just you making shit up, unable to control your compulsion to lie about gay people.

You can't help yourself.

All it takes is a loud enough amplifier.

Yawning.....nope. You're just thumb sucking. Desperately trying to convince yourself of another piece of hapless pseudo-legal gibberish that you imagine will sooth the dissonance between what you imagined....and what the world actually is.

It won't. Nor has it ever.

 

[Skylar]

Nothing provides a child with a mother or a father for life. There is no provision in American law for contractual imposition.

I didn't think so. My understanding of contract imposition is that it exists only in UK law. Not US law.

The closest we come is a third party beneficiary contract. That's where two parties enter into a contract for the benefit of a third party.

That's not even close to contract imposition. As the contract imposed under UK law obligates the parties bound to it. In a beneficiary arrangement, the beneficiary is never obligated under contract.

Making the two as fundamentally different as being bound by a contract. And not being bound by a contract.

They're literal opposites.

 

[Katzndogz]

Nothing provides a child with a mother or a father for life. There is no provision in American law for contractual imposition.

I didn't think so. My understanding of contract imposition is that it exists only in UK law. Not US law.

The closest we come is a third party beneficiary contract. That's where two parties enter into a contract for the benefit of a third party.

That's not even close to contract imposition. As the contract imposed under UK law obligates the parties bound to it. In a beneficiary arrangement, the beneficiary is never obligated under contract.

Making the two as fundamentally different as being bound by a contract. And not being bound by a contract.

They're literal opposites.

Nevertheless, the closest we come to the tortured obligation of a third party is the third party beneficiary contract. That it's not applicable, or even useful, only illustrates that there is nothing in our laws that remotely applies.

I personally feel that imposing same sex parents on a child is a form of child abuse. There is no legal argument against same sex parenting. Raising children into twisted, dysfunctional adults is not against the law.

 

[Silhouette]

Nothing provides a child with a mother or a father for life. There is no provision in American law for contractual imposition.

Nevertheless, the closest we come to the tortured obligation of a third party is the third party beneficiary contract. That it's not applicable, or even useful, only illustrates that there is nothing in our laws that remotely applies.

I personally feel that imposing same sex parents on a child is a form of child abuse. There is no legal argument against same sex parenting. Raising children into twisted, dysfunctional adults is not against the law.

Oh but there absolutely is a legal argument. Marriage is a contract between two adults because of children. You'd have to prove that isn't historically true and contemporarily important. Whether the contract is written or implied doesn't matter, it is equally binding. Children (in general) had a share in that contract.. They enjoyed unique benefits to themselves up until last Summer. In fact, marriage was created for them, to cure the many social ills of all the inferior situations to a child finding himself in a home with both a mother and father that would last "till death do they part". Even then, widows and widowers sought to or were encouraged to remarry "for the sake of the children".

So, you're very first pitch out of the chute defending that "children aren't part of the marriage contract" (because if there's a question of harm to children, the burden would be upon that side promoting the deprivation, and not the side advocating the status quo on behalf of a child's previous enjoyment) would be to convince the court that "the marriage contract is in no way about children". And in the case of this thread, it might be handy to have on your side the sentiments of society at large behind you. Because the indication of the poll says that about 80-90% of Americans believe that a child having both a mother and father is important.

Also, you'd have to prove that boys without a father or girls without a mother fared equally well to their peers. Might want to read this before you prepare those arguments: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

So, good luck!

 

[Skylar]

Nothing provides a child with a mother or a father for life. There is no provision in American law for contractual imposition.

I didn't think so. My understanding of contract imposition is that it exists only in UK law. Not US law.

The closest we come is a third party beneficiary contract. That's where two parties enter into a contract for the benefit of a third party.

That's not even close to contract imposition. As the contract imposed under UK law obligates the parties bound to it. In a beneficiary arrangement, the beneficiary is never obligated under contract.

Making the two as fundamentally different as being bound by a contract. And not being bound by a contract.

They're literal opposites.

Nevertheless, the closest we come to the tortured obligation of a third party is the third party beneficiary contract. That it's not applicable, or even useful, only illustrates that there is nothing in our laws that remotely applies.

Literal opposites is not the closest we can come. The closest we can come to an imposed contract...is a court order.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I personally feel that imposing same sex parents on a child is a form of child abuse. There is no legal argument against same sex parenting. Raising children into twisted, dysfunctional adults is not against the law.

The legal argument is only lost due to a corruption of the law which denies certain important realities in place of politically-correct madness in the name of “equality”. The hard truth is that homosexual pairings are not, and never will be, the same as heterosexual pairings, will never be able to properly fulfill the same purpose, and will never be “equal”, no matter how much the law tries to declare them to be. Calling a homosexual pairing a “marriage” does not make it so, and does not enable it to fulfill the same purpose as a genuine marriage; and allowing children to be adopted into such a mockery fulfills only the selfish interests of immoral perverts, at the expense of the children whose own interests are disregarded in doing so.

 

[Silhouette]

The legal argument is only lost due to a corruption of the law which denies certain important realities in place of politically-correct madness in the name of “equality”. The hard truth is that homosexual pairings are not, and never will be, the same as heterosexual pairings, will never be able to properly fulfill the same purpose, and will never be “equal”, no matter how much the law tries to declare them to be. Calling a homosexual pairing a “marriage” does not make it so, and does not enable it to fulfill the same purpose as a genuine marriage; and allowing children to be adopted into such a mockery fulfills only the selfish interests of immoral perverts, at the expense of the children whose own interests are disregarded in doing so.

Actually it's hard to lose a legal argument that hasn't yet been made before a court. Stay tuned...

 

[Skylar]

Nothing provides a child with a mother or a father for life. There is no provision in American law for contractual imposition.

Nevertheless, the closest we come to the tortured obligation of a third party is the third party beneficiary contract. That it's not applicable, or even useful, only illustrates that there is nothing in our laws that remotely applies.

I personally feel that imposing same sex parents on a child is a form of child abuse. There is no legal argument against same sex parenting. Raising children into twisted, dysfunctional adults is not against the law.

Oh but there absolutely is a legal argument.

Nope. Remember, you ignoring the Supreme Court and making shit up isn't a legal argument. Let me demonstrate:

Marriage is a contract between two adults because of children.

Nope. The right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. Says who? Why the Supreme Court itself:

This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

You straight up ignoring binding legal precedent and the explicit findings of the Supreme Court and replace them both with whatever you imagine.

That's not a legal argument.

You'd have to prove that isn't historically true and contemporarily important. Whether the contract is written or implied doesn't matter, it is equally binding.

Nope. There's no such requirement. You made it up. You can type whatever pseudo-legal gibberish you like, make up whatever you want.

But its still has nothing to do with the actual law or actual precedent. Thus, none of your imaginary 'requirements' exist.

See how this works?

Children (in general) had a share in that contract..

Says you. Show us any court or law that recognizes that a marriage of parents creates a minor contract for children. Or any court or law that finds that children are married to their parents, as you have insisted.

There is none. You made it up. And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

Noticing a pattern yet?

 

[Skylar]

I personally feel that imposing same sex parents on a child is a form of child abuse. There is no legal argument against same sex parenting. Raising children into twisted, dysfunctional adults is not against the law.

The legal argument is only lost due to a corruption of the law which denies certain important realities in place of politically-correct madness in the name of “equality”.

Or...neither the law nor society accept you as defining anything about marriage. And you citing your personal opinion doesn't create any objective definitions. Nor have the slightest relevance to anyone's marriage.

The hard truth is that homosexual pairings are not, and never will be, the same as heterosexual pairings, will never be able to properly fulfill the same purpose, and will never be “equal”, no matter how much the law tries to declare them to be.

The hard truth is that marriage is invented by us. Its basis and definition are whatever we say they are.

You insist that marriage is only what *you* say it is. And you're nobody.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Skylar]

The legal argument is only lost due to a corruption of the law which denies certain important realities in place of politically-correct madness in the name of “equality”. The hard truth is that homosexual pairings are not, and never will be, the same as heterosexual pairings, will never be able to properly fulfill the same purpose, and will never be “equal”, no matter how much the law tries to declare them to be. Calling a homosexual pairing a “marriage” does not make it so, and does not enable it to fulfill the same purpose as a genuine marriage; and allowing children to be adopted into such a mockery fulfills only the selfish interests of immoral perverts, at the expense of the children whose own interests are disregarded in doing so.

Actually it's hard to lose a legal argument that hasn't yet been made before a court. Stay tuned...

Laughing.....you said the same thing about the Kim Davis appeal. The Obergefell ruling. The Kennedy stay of Utah. The '56 times' of the Windsor ruling.

How'd those turn out again?

 

[Katzndogz]

Marriage was never a contract between adults for the benefit of children. Children were never more than the result of men and women coupling.

Originally the marriage contract was the physical manifestation of peace agreements and trade treaties. Then marriage was a way to amass fortunes. Far from being a beneficiary of a contract beween a loving mother and father, girls were items of barter. With the consolidation of money and power came the protection of that money and power by primogenenture. The eldest son inherits everything. Far from being the beneficiary of a contract beween a loving mother and father, subsequent sons were worthless. Most of the time a caring mother might protect a juvenile. Once an adult second sons were normally cast out.

That's historically. Today, children are not only not part of a marriage contract, but contracts like pre nups and the like don't mention children at all. Children are raised by single parents that have never been married, divorced parents, same sex family members and same sex couples.

In Europe, somewhat ahead of the curve, most children don't live in families at all. They are raised by a single mother with transitory father figures which may be male or female. Marriage is just not that popular.