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

[mdk]

Sil confirmed she was female a while back, when she explained to us that a group of gay men allegedly attempted to gang rape her into giving homosexually a test run.

Wow. Lol. Usually women don't really care . . . well, maybe when they see a really hot guy and find out he's gay. That can be a bummer I suppose.

Story of my life. lol

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Having a mother and a father is important. Gay marriage does not and cannot supply a developing child with everything essential to their well being. Are you with me so far?

Children are still not part of any marriage contract and have no rights in the marriage itself. The law currently does not find the presence of a mother and father essential to a child's growth. Two parents are optimum, without regard to gender. That is current law. So, don't look for a break open new set of laws.

Which goes to show that the law, as it is currently being applied, is simply wrong. “The law is a ass, a idiot.”

Our society used to enact and apply laws that were based on a correct recognition of the importance to a child's well-being of having both a father and a mother in the home. We've discarded this in the name of “equality”. We've purged our laws and our application thereof, of recognition of the essential differences between male and female. We've mistaken madness for enlightenment and progress.

 

[Silhouette]

Well tipsy is wrong. It's that simple. The contract is implied and children's share in it is implied. Implied contracts are as valid as written ones. So brush up on contract law. Then brush up on the Infant Doctrine and necessities. A child CANNOT be deprived of a necessity via a contract of any kind. Such a contract is wholly invalid. Even if the contract is found "to not include children". If any contract exists whose terms produce onerous terms to children, who are in fact involved in marriage, that contract isn't merely voidable upon challenge; it is void immediately before its ink is dry. So, in the purest legal technical terms, the minute two gay people fill out a marriage license at any clerk's office, before the ink is dry, that contract is already void.

 

[ChrisL]

Sil confirmed she was female a while back, when she explained to us that a group of gay men allegedly attempted to gang rape her into giving homosexually a test run.

Wow. Lol. Usually women don't really care . . . well, maybe when they see a really hot guy and find out he's gay. That can be a bummer I suppose.

Story of my life. lol

 

[Syriusly]

Keep hoping Skylar. Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws,..

Not one lawyer has said that they agree with you.

The voices in your head are not lawyers- keep repeating that until you can understand that.

That's weird, I wonder if any of the 80-90% of the people who agrees with me in the poll above is a lawyer? \...

Just pointing out again- not one lawyer has said that they agree with you- about anything.

 

[Syriusly]

Well tipsy is wrong. It's that simple. The contract is implied and children's share in it is implied. .

Not one lawyer, not one court, not one rational person has agreed with you.

 

[Syriusly]

Having a mother and a father is important. Gay marriage does not and cannot supply a developing child with everything essential to their well being. Are you with me so far?

Children are still not part of any marriage contract and have no rights in the marriage itself. The law currently does not find the presence of a mother and father essential to a child's growth. Two parents are optimum, without regard to gender. That is current law. So, don't look for a break open new set of laws.

Which goes to show that the law, as it is currently being applied, is simply wrong. “The law is a ass, a idiot.”

Our society used to enact and apply laws that were based on a correct recognition of the importance to a child's well-being of having both a father and a mother in the home. We've discarded this in the name of “equality”. We've purged our laws and our application thereof, of recognition of the essential differences between male and female. We've mistaken madness for enlightenment and progress.

What BS.

Children used to be virtual chattel of the father. Before child labor laws a father could hire his child out- and before child protection laws, a father could legally beat his child almost to death.

When divorce happened- which it did happen- men got custody- and children were dragged away from their mothers with no visitation at all.

There was never a time when 'a child's well being' was considered to be dependent on having a mother and a father- if a child had enough food and a roof over his head he was considered well taken care of.

This is all revisionist history to rationalize discrimination against gays.

 

[mdk]

Well tipsy is wrong. It's that simple. The contract is implied and children's share in it is implied. Implied contracts are as valid as written ones. So brush up on contract law. Then brush up on the Infant Doctrine and necessities. A child CANNOT be deprived of a necessity via a contract of any kind. Such a contract is wholly invalid. Even if the contract is found "to not include children". If any contract exists whose terms produce onerous terms to children, who are in fact involved in marriage, that contract isn't merely voidable upon challenge; it is void immediately before its ink is dry. So, in the purest legal technical terms, the minute two gay people fill out a marriage license at any clerk's office, before the ink is dry, that contract is already void.

The silly legal yarns you spin just to hurt homos is highly hysterical. Using these illogical and odd standards, you just made every single divorce in this nation void before the ink was dry. Something tells me that they don't have to follow this standard, though. Only queers are subject to these imaginary standards of yours.

 

[ChrisL]

Well tipsy is wrong. It's that simple. The contract is implied and children's share in it is implied. Implied contracts are as valid as written ones. So brush up on contract law. Then brush up on the Infant Doctrine and necessities. A child CANNOT be deprived of a necessity via a contract of any kind. Such a contract is wholly invalid. Even if the contract is found "to not include children". If any contract exists whose terms produce onerous terms to children, who are in fact involved in marriage, that contract isn't merely voidable upon challenge; it is void immediately before its ink is dry. So, in the purest legal technical terms, the minute two gay people fill out a marriage license at any clerk's office, before the ink is dry, that contract is already void.

The silly legal yarns you spin just to hurt homos is highly hysterical. Using these illogical and odd standards, you just made every single divorce in this nation void before the ink was dry. Something tells me that they don't have to follow this standard, though. Only queers are subject to these imaginary standards of yours.

Isn't it strange, the amount of hatred you have to put up with just because of your sexual orientation? People are fucked up. Lol.

 

[mdk]

Well tipsy is wrong. It's that simple. The contract is implied and children's share in it is implied. Implied contracts are as valid as written ones. So brush up on contract law. Then brush up on the Infant Doctrine and necessities. A child CANNOT be deprived of a necessity via a contract of any kind. Such a contract is wholly invalid. Even if the contract is found "to not include children". If any contract exists whose terms produce onerous terms to children, who are in fact involved in marriage, that contract isn't merely voidable upon challenge; it is void immediately before its ink is dry. So, in the purest legal technical terms, the minute two gay people fill out a marriage license at any clerk's office, before the ink is dry, that contract is already void.

The silly legal yarns you spin just to hurt homos is highly hysterical. Using these illogical and odd standards, you just made every single divorce in this nation void before the ink was dry. Something tells me that they don't have to follow this standard, though. Only queers are subject to these imaginary standards of yours.

Isn't it strange, the amount of hatred you have to put up with just because of your sexual orientation? People are fucked up. Lol.

Luckily, I don't have any in my life. I have wonderful family and friends. My husband and I are both well respected members of the city. People pretty much leave us alone...unless they want our money. lol

 

[ChrisL]

Well tipsy is wrong. It's that simple. The contract is implied and children's share in it is implied. Implied contracts are as valid as written ones. So brush up on contract law. Then brush up on the Infant Doctrine and necessities. A child CANNOT be deprived of a necessity via a contract of any kind. Such a contract is wholly invalid. Even if the contract is found "to not include children". If any contract exists whose terms produce onerous terms to children, who are in fact involved in marriage, that contract isn't merely voidable upon challenge; it is void immediately before its ink is dry. So, in the purest legal technical terms, the minute two gay people fill out a marriage license at any clerk's office, before the ink is dry, that contract is already void.

The silly legal yarns you spin just to hurt homos is highly hysterical. Using these illogical and odd standards, you just made every single divorce in this nation void before the ink was dry. Something tells me that they don't have to follow this standard, though. Only queers are subject to these imaginary standards of yours.

Isn't it strange, the amount of hatred you have to put up with just because of your sexual orientation? People are fucked up. Lol.

Luckily, I don't have any in my life. I have wonderful family and friends. My husband and I are both well respected members of the city. People pretty much leave us alone...unless they want our money. lol

Happy to hear that, sweetie!

 

[Silhouette]

Well tipsy is wrong. It's that simple. The contract is implied and children's share in it is implied. Implied contracts are as valid as written ones. So brush up on contract law. Then brush up on the Infant Doctrine and necessities. A child CANNOT be deprived of a necessity via a contract of any kind. Such a contract is wholly invalid. Even if the contract is found "to not include children". If any contract exists whose terms produce onerous terms to children, who are in fact involved in marriage, that contract isn't merely voidable upon challenge; it is void immediately before its ink is dry. So, in the purest legal technical terms, the minute two gay people fill out a marriage license at any clerk's office, before the ink is dry, that contract is already void.

The silly legal yarns you spin just to hurt homos is highly hysterical. Using these illogical and odd standards, you just made every single divorce in this nation void before the ink was dry. Something tells me that they don't have to follow this standard, though. Only queers are subject to these imaginary standards of yours.

Isn't it strange, the amount of hatred you have to put up with just because of your sexual orientation? People are fucked up. Lol.

Says the poster who apparently voted against the 80-90% of Americans who feel it's important a child have both a mother and father..

Is it the 80-90% who are "fucked up", or is it you Chris?... I guess being "fucked up" is all a matter of perspective....

Gays "sexual orientation" is their business. When they try to make it everyone else's business, even children who have no power to resist them, that's when we see who is truly "fucked up" in the equation.

 

[ChrisL]

Well tipsy is wrong. It's that simple. The contract is implied and children's share in it is implied. Implied contracts are as valid as written ones. So brush up on contract law. Then brush up on the Infant Doctrine and necessities. A child CANNOT be deprived of a necessity via a contract of any kind. Such a contract is wholly invalid. Even if the contract is found "to not include children". If any contract exists whose terms produce onerous terms to children, who are in fact involved in marriage, that contract isn't merely voidable upon challenge; it is void immediately before its ink is dry. So, in the purest legal technical terms, the minute two gay people fill out a marriage license at any clerk's office, before the ink is dry, that contract is already void.

The silly legal yarns you spin just to hurt homos is highly hysterical. Using these illogical and odd standards, you just made every single divorce in this nation void before the ink was dry. Something tells me that they don't have to follow this standard, though. Only queers are subject to these imaginary standards of yours.

Isn't it strange, the amount of hatred you have to put up with just because of your sexual orientation? People are fucked up. Lol.

Says the poster who apparently voted against the 80-90% of Americans who feel it's important a child have both a mother and father..

Is it the 80-90% who are "fucked up", or is it you Chris?... I guess being "fucked up" is all a matter of perspective....

Gays "sexual orientation" is their business. When they try to make it everyone else's business, even children who have no power to resist them, that's when we see who is truly "fucked up" in the equation.

I didn't vote, you absolute moron. Lol. You have some issues. Maybe if you stopped obsessing about what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms, you would have a life?

 

[sealybobo]

Well tipsy is wrong. It's that simple. The contract is implied and children's share in it is implied. Implied contracts are as valid as written ones. So brush up on contract law. Then brush up on the Infant Doctrine and necessities. A child CANNOT be deprived of a necessity via a contract of any kind. Such a contract is wholly invalid. Even if the contract is found "to not include children". If any contract exists whose terms produce onerous terms to children, who are in fact involved in marriage, that contract isn't merely voidable upon challenge; it is void immediately before its ink is dry. So, in the purest legal technical terms, the minute two gay people fill out a marriage license at any clerk's office, before the ink is dry, that contract is already void.

The silly legal yarns you spin just to hurt homos is highly hysterical. Using these illogical and odd standards, you just made every single divorce in this nation void before the ink was dry. Something tells me that they don't have to follow this standard, though. Only queers are subject to these imaginary standards of yours.

Isn't it strange, the amount of hatred you have to put up with just because of your sexual orientation? People are fucked up. Lol.

Says the poster who apparently voted against the 80-90% of Americans who feel it's important a child have both a mother and father..

Is it the 80-90% who are "fucked up", or is it you Chris?... I guess being "fucked up" is all a matter of perspective....

I want to know what bastards voted it isn't important. They're just telling themselves that

Or that person had bad parents? Better to have 1 good parent than 1 good and 1 bad. Not all people are good influences on their kids. Should Scarface have raised a child? Id rather a loving gay couple raise the child. At least I know it'll be loved even if it grows up to be gay.

Do I prefer straight couples get first dips at adopting? Sure.

 

[mdk]

Well tipsy is wrong. It's that simple. The contract is implied and children's share in it is implied. Implied contracts are as valid as written ones. So brush up on contract law. Then brush up on the Infant Doctrine and necessities. A child CANNOT be deprived of a necessity via a contract of any kind. Such a contract is wholly invalid. Even if the contract is found "to not include children". If any contract exists whose terms produce onerous terms to children, who are in fact involved in marriage, that contract isn't merely voidable upon challenge; it is void immediately before its ink is dry. So, in the purest legal technical terms, the minute two gay people fill out a marriage license at any clerk's office, before the ink is dry, that contract is already void.

The silly legal yarns you spin just to hurt homos is highly hysterical. Using these illogical and odd standards, you just made every single divorce in this nation void before the ink was dry. Something tells me that they don't have to follow this standard, though. Only queers are subject to these imaginary standards of yours.

Isn't it strange, the amount of hatred you have to put up with just because of your sexual orientation? People are fucked up. Lol.

Says the poster who apparently voted against the 80-90% of Americans who feel it's important a child have both a mother and father..

Is it the 80-90% who are "fucked up", or is it you Chris?... I guess being "fucked up" is all a matter of perspective....

Gays "sexual orientation" is their business. When they try to make it everyone else's business, even children who have no power to resist them, that's when we see who is truly "fucked up" in the equation.

For it being 'their business' you sure do gas on about homos a great deal. Mind your household before you start poking your neb nose in mine.

 

[Skylar]

Well tipsy is wrong. It's that simple. The contract is implied and children's share in it is implied.

Nope, its just you citing useless pseudo-legal gibberish of your own invention.

Your claims about children and marriage have changed over and over and you desperately scramble to different terms you don't understand, hoping one fits.

First you said children were 'married to their parents'. That was obvious horseshit. Then you said that marriage was a 'minor contract' for children. Which has hapless ignorance. Then you said that children are 'parties to the marriage contract'. But that was nonsense. Then you said they were 'third party beneficiaries'. Which was obvious gibberish.

Now your latest fixation is 'implied contract'. Which doesn't work, as children can't enter into implied contracts. Only explicit ones.

If your claims about contract law were valid, you wouldn't have had to keep changing them. You don't know the first thing about contract law.

Implied contracts are as valid as written ones. So brush up on contract law.

You're not citing contract law. You're citing yourself.

Show us one law or court case in which children are recognized as parties to the marriage of their parents. You can't. You made that up.

Then brush up on the Infant Doctrine and necessities. A child CANNOT be deprived of a necessity via a contract of any kind. Such a contract is wholly invalid.

The Infancy Doctrine is Business Law. It has nothing to do with marriage. Nor can you show us one instance of the Infancy Doctrine ever being applied to marriage. You made that up.

And of course, no law nor court recognizes children as a party to the marriage of their parents.

You made that up too.

Even if the contract is found "to not include children". If any contract exists whose terms produce onerous terms to children, who are in fact involved in marriage, that contract isn't merely voidable upon challenge; it is void immediately before its ink is dry. So, in the purest legal technical terms, the minute two gay people fill out a marriage license at any clerk's office, before the ink is dry, that contract is already void.

Nope. None of that is recognized by any law or any court. You made it up. And thus legally void pseudo-legal gibberish.

Which explains why same sex marriage legal in 50 of 50 states. And nothing you've typed on the topic is valid anywhere.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no contract, express or implied, between children and parents. If there is a contract, what are the terms? What is the consideration the child brings to establish the existence of the contract? How is the contract breached by the parent? What act constitutes a breach by the child?

Start out with love as a contractual condition is void as against public policy.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no contract, express or implied, between children and parents. If there is a contract, what are the terms? What is the consideration the child brings to establish the existence of the contract? How is the contract breached by the parent? What act constitutes a breach by the child? Start out with love as a contractual condition is void as against public policy.

You're right. But there is a contract that children have unique rights to...."marriage". The contract is shared among adults and children of marriage. And it's terms children needed and enjoyed up until last Summer were "a mother and father" bonded in a home from which the children there benefited from said. Children don't "marry" their parents (yet, give the cult of LGBT enough time and warped precedents run wild..) and parents don't marry their children. But by virtue of a man and woman marrying, the children who SHARE the contract get what they NEED ...a mom and dad..

 

[Syriusly]

Well tipsy is wrong. It's that simple. The contract is implied and children's share in it is implied. Implied contracts are as valid as written ones. So brush up on contract law. Then brush up on the Infant Doctrine and necessities. A child CANNOT be deprived of a necessity via a contract of any kind. Such a contract is wholly invalid. Even if the contract is found "to not include children". If any contract exists whose terms produce onerous terms to children, who are in fact involved in marriage, that contract isn't merely voidable upon challenge; it is void immediately before its ink is dry. So, in the purest legal technical terms, the minute two gay people fill out a marriage license at any clerk's office, before the ink is dry, that contract is already void.

The silly legal yarns you spin just to hurt homos is highly hysterical. Using these illogical and odd standards, you just made every single divorce in this nation void before the ink was dry. Something tells me that they don't have to follow this standard, though. Only queers are subject to these imaginary standards of yours.

Isn't it strange, the amount of hatred you have to put up with just because of your sexual orientation? People are fucked up. Lol.

Gays "sexual orientation" is their business. When they try to make it everyone else's business, even children who have no power to resist them, that's when we see who is truly "fucked up" in the equation.

A gay couple wanting to get married is no more making it someone else's business any more than when my wife and I got married, we made our sexual orientation everyone else's business.

Just stop your jihad against Homosexuals and the voices in your head will stop talking to you.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no contract, express or implied, between children and parents. If there is a contract, what are the terms? What is the consideration the child brings to establish the existence of the contract? How is the contract breached by the parent? What act constitutes a breach by the child? Start out with love as a contractual condition is void as against public policy.

You're right. But there is a contract that children have unique rights to...."marriage". ..

Stop listening to the voices in your head.

If that contract existed- Children could both require parents to divorce- and could prevent parents from divorcing- and that of course doesn't happen.