Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Can you imagine if Silhouette was your mother?
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.
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.
Hey so your points are that marriage in the past was a dysfunctional allegiance/contract including adults and kids...but not that it did not include kids...because you talk quite a lot about how the word "marriage" allowed adults to do certain things with or to kids. If married people tried to give away someone else's daughter in marriage, there'd have been a problem for sure. So the "marriage contract" was intrinsic to what adults could and could not do with children even back in the dark ages. However, BEFORE THAT when Og and Thula built their fire and fried their goat meat over it for sustenance, their society bonded them together for the sake of not wanting orphaned kids or a single mother where then that was a death sentence to any children she would bear or an undue burden upon the clan. So, marriage WAS invented to cure the ills of children not having a mother & father...LATER..marriage included some shady shit where kids were treated badly.
CHILDREN IMPLICITLY SHARE IN THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT, BUT WERE WITHOUT REPRESENTATION AT OBERGEFELL 2015.
"...some contracts cannot be voided....perhaps the biggest area of enforceable minor contracts deals with necessaries, which consist of goods reasonably necessary for subsistence, health, comfort or education. As such, contracts furnishing these items to a minor cannot be disaffirmed.
<< A NECESSITY PER CONTRACT: FATHER AND MOTHER TO BOYS AND GIRLS Contracts of Minors ‘Quartet of Truth’: Adult children of gay parents testify against same-sex ‘marriage’ at 5th Circuit Prince's Trust 2010 Survey: http://www.youreffortmatters.com/princes-trust-2010-youth-index-survey.html
The gender of a child's parents isn't determined by marriage. Nor does denying marriage to same sex parents magically change them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children will never have married parents. Which hurts their children while helping none.
Of course, you are deliberately missing the important point, here. You're defending a situation in which children are intentionally put into a broken mockery of a “family”, that is missing one parent, and in which a duplicate of the other parent is offered in stead—a child who has no mother and two “fathers”, or a child with no father and two “mothers”.
This is an unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral situation in which to put these children; and piling on top of it the fraud of declaring these two same-sex “parents” to be “married” to each other does nothing to mitigate it. Just more lies and madness on top of a situation that is already based on lies and madness.
If you really care about the welfare of these children, then you ought to be totally opposed to putting them in this situation to begin with; rather than merely offering them a hollow fraud that tries to put an unconvincing veneer of normality on what is unalterably and undisguisably an abnormal and unnatural arrangement.
I think it is clear enough that your motive has nothing at all to do with the welfare of the children that are involved, but rather with the interests of the sick perverts who would use these children as cover for their own selfish and perverted agenda.
No. In your scenario the law should be the father participates financially even if he won't emotionally in the child's life.
A lot of single moms do fine with what they got. Especially if their spouse dies. But dont pretend its a positive thing for kids cause it aint.
And you make a good point not all fathers make good dads. Some kids are better off without their fathers. No ones going to eliminate all bad parents but we can certainly lower the numbers. Why are you pro one parent homes?
And no one wants to take your kid away. You had him now raise him. We're sick of you raising piss poor humans.
I'm tired of listening to people blame their parents for what shitty people they are.
But since even POTENTIAL Children are more important that the happiness of adults, we need to put people in servitude to their children. THis is the retarded argument that Silly-wet is using to try to hide his psychopathic homophobia (read latent homosexuality) behind
We really are lucky if we were born to two good parents.
What "dishonest misrepresentation"? .....Without the dishonest misrepresentation of data, Sil's posts would be little more than punctuation.
89.2 % of people think that not having gay marriage is important to children.
What "dishonest misrepresentation"? .....Without the dishonest misrepresentation of data, Sil's posts would be little more than punctuation.
89.2 % of people think that not having gay marriage is important to children.
You answered your own question.All you do is misrepresent facts- except for when you are outright lying.
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.
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. !
What "dishonest misrepresentation"? .....Without the dishonest misrepresentation of data, Sil's posts would be little more than punctuation.
89.2 % of people think that not having gay marriage is important to children.
You answered your own question.All you do is misrepresent facts- except for when you are outright lying.
Oh, look~ You guys buried my points on a "lost page" with ad hominems and strawmen AGAIN. .
What "dishonest misrepresentation"? .....Without the dishonest misrepresentation of data, Sil's posts would be little more than punctuation.
89.2 % of people think that not having gay marriage is important to children.
You answered your own question.All you do is misrepresent facts- except for when you are outright lying.
Oh, look~ You guys buried my points on a "lost page" with ad hominems and strawmen AGAIN. Where were we...? Oh, yes...
Hey so your points are that marriage in the past was a dysfunctional allegiance/contract including adults and kids...but not that it did not include kids...because you talk quite a lot about how the word "marriage" allowed adults to do certain things with or to kids. If married people tried to give away someone else's daughter in marriage, there'd have been a problem for sure. So the "marriage contract" was intrinsic to what adults could and could not do with children even back in the dark ages. However, BEFORE THAT when Og and Thula built their fire and fried their goat meat over it for sustenance, their society bonded them together for the sake of not wanting orphaned kids or a single mother where then that was a death sentence to any children she would bear or an undue burden upon the clan. So, marriage WAS invented to cure the ills of children not having a mother & father...LATER..marriage included some shady shit where kids were treated badly.
TODAY (if you will examine the poll above at top of this page) society deems marriage to be a contract that is "important" to children in that it bonds together a mother and father so that they can grow up in regular contact with these two people. So TODAY'S definition of the contract is the binding one. My points about Og and Thula are here for the oldest historical perspective on how society knows that children who are deprived of either a mother or father come to peril.
You can make your argument that an even newer interpretation of the original intent (mother and father for children) that gays would result in just as well-rounded of citizens as straights for parents of children who IN FACT share the marriage contract IMPLICITLY with adults. But you cannot make an argument that marriage and its terms do not impact children....because you just made that argument in your statement above!
But there is an obstacle in the way of any argument that "gays are just as good for kids as straights when it comes to married parents". And here it is: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY ...Added to the poll results at the top of the page where 80-90% of Americans believe a child having both a mother and father is "important" to that child....
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.
I hit the jackpot.No. In your scenario the law should be the father participates financially even if he won't emotionally in the child's life.
A lot of single moms do fine with what they got. Especially if their spouse dies. But dont pretend its a positive thing for kids cause it aint.
And you make a good point not all fathers make good dads. Some kids are better off without their fathers. No ones going to eliminate all bad parents but we can certainly lower the numbers. Why are you pro one parent homes?
And no one wants to take your kid away. You had him now raise him. We're sick of you raising piss poor humans.
I'm tired of listening to people blame their parents for what shitty people they are.
But since even POTENTIAL Children are more important that the happiness of adults, we need to put people in servitude to their children. THis is the retarded argument that Silly-wet is using to try to hide his psychopathic homophobia (read latent homosexuality) behind
We really are lucky if we were born to two good parents.
After decades of watching families- I think a child is really lucky if they have one really good parent- they hit the jackpot if they have two really good parents.
I hit the jackpot.No. In your scenario the law should be the father participates financially even if he won't emotionally in the child's life.
A lot of single moms do fine with what they got. Especially if their spouse dies. But dont pretend its a positive thing for kids cause it aint.
And you make a good point not all fathers make good dads. Some kids are better off without their fathers. No ones going to eliminate all bad parents but we can certainly lower the numbers. Why are you pro one parent homes?
And no one wants to take your kid away. You had him now raise him. We're sick of you raising piss poor humans.
I'm tired of listening to people blame their parents for what shitty people they are.
But since even POTENTIAL Children are more important that the happiness of adults, we need to put people in servitude to their children. THis is the retarded argument that Silly-wet is using to try to hide his psychopathic homophobia (read latent homosexuality) behind
We really are lucky if we were born to two good parents.
After decades of watching families- I think a child is really lucky if they have one really good parent- they hit the jackpot if they have two really good parents.
As a matter of law, children are not "third party beneficiaries" of the marriage contract. The only legal relevance of the designation "third party beneficiary" is that the third party has the right to enforce the contract. Those are the kind of contracts wherein the contract is made for the express purpose of benefitting the third person.
I hit the jackpot.No. In your scenario the law should be the father participates financially even if he won't emotionally in the child's life.
A lot of single moms do fine with what they got. Especially if their spouse dies. But dont pretend its a positive thing for kids cause it aint.
And you make a good point not all fathers make good dads. Some kids are better off without their fathers. No ones going to eliminate all bad parents but we can certainly lower the numbers. Why are you pro one parent homes?
And no one wants to take your kid away. You had him now raise him. We're sick of you raising piss poor humans.
I'm tired of listening to people blame their parents for what shitty people they are.
But since even POTENTIAL Children are more important that the happiness of adults, we need to put people in servitude to their children. THis is the retarded argument that Silly-wet is using to try to hide his psychopathic homophobia (read latent homosexuality) behind
We really are lucky if we were born to two good parents.
After decades of watching families- I think a child is really lucky if they have one really good parent- they hit the jackpot if they have two really good parents.
So did I. And frankly so has my daughter.
Define marriage and you find that:As a matter of law, children are not "third party beneficiaries" of the marriage contract. The only legal relevance of the designation "third party beneficiary" is that the third party has the right to enforce the contract. Those are the kind of contracts wherein the contract is made for the express purpose of benefitting the third person.
I've searched the law looking for anyone, any court, any law that says that children are third party benefices of the 'marriage contract'. I've found absolutely nothing. Not a single state law, state ruling, federal law or federal ruling that has found this.
There are implied obligations between parents and child, namely support. But none I could find regarding marriage and any implied or explicit obligation to children. Nor any recognition of children as third party beneficiaries to marriage.
I've even found courts that found that marriage was a three party contract between two people and the State.
But never two people and their children.
It appears Sil pulled this sideways out of her ass.
