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

[Bob Blaylock]

Maybe if you stopped obsessing about what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms…

It's not about what people do in the privacy of their bedroom. It's about perverts imposing their sickness on others without the consent of those others.

 

[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.

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..

I am going to try again. Children do not share in the marriage contract. There is no contractual provision, express or implied that a child can enforce. Nor has there ever been any part of the marital relationship enforceable by a child. Surely you understand this. A child may need a mom and a dad. There is just no legal method that guarantees them a mom and a dad. The courts have moved from mom and dad to two parents. The statutory language is being rewritten to reflect two parents rather than mom and dad.

Is this twisted? Yes. Will it result in dysfunctional deranged children? Certainly. In the future it might be recognized that something terrible was done to children. That's not today. Today you are flat wrong.

 

[Silhouette]

Maybe if you stopped obsessing about what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms…

It's not about what people do in the privacy of their bedroom. It's about perverts imposing their sickness on others without the consent of those others.

Especially when those "others" are children who are protected from adults as to their needs via the Infants Doctrine. Ancient law. And New York vs Ferber.

 

[Silhouette]

I am going to try again. Children do not share in the marriage contract. There is no contractual provision, express or implied that a child can enforce.

Oh, children don't enforce necessity contracts: courts do. And children do in fact implicitly share and enjoy the marriage contract...they were the reason it was created over a thousand years ago. To cure the ills of children being without a mother and father. You can blow hard until the cows come home but the facts surrounding infants and contract law are in the bedrock of the foundation of American law. You've got a long hard road ahead of you convincing a court that children aren't in any way shape or form part of marriage; or that they 'never derived enjoyments or necessities from the marriage contract'.

Good luck! (Google "implied contracts" if you're still confused...)

 

[mdk]

I am going to try again. Children do not share in the marriage contract. There is no contractual provision, express or implied that a child can enforce.

Oh, children don't enforce necessity contracts: courts do. And children do in fact implicitly share and enjoy the marriage contract...they were the reason it was created over a thousand years ago. To cure the ills of children being without a mother and father. You can blow hard until the cows come home but the facts surrounding infants and contract law are in the bedrock of the foundation of American law. You've got a long hard road ahead of you convincing a court that children aren't in any way shape or form part of marriage; or that they 'never derived enjoyments or necessities from the marriage contract'.

Good luck! (Google "implied contracts" if you're still confused...)

Here is a list of states where children implicitly enjoy and share a marriage contract:

1:

Better luck tomorrow

 

[Katzndogz]

Maybe if you stopped obsessing about what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms…

It's not about what people do in the privacy of their bedroom. It's about perverts imposing their sickness on others without the consent of those others.

Especially when those "others" are children who are protected from adults as to their needs via the Infants Doctrine. Ancient law. And New York vs Ferber.

The Infant Doctrine has nothing to do with marriage.

 

[Skylar]

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".

Says you. And you're the one that also offered us meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish such as 'children are married to their parents', 'children are parties to the marriage contract', 'the marriage of parents creates a minor contract for children', 'children are third party beneficiaries of marriage' and 'children are parties to an implied contract in marriage'.

All of which you've abandoned. You're desperately scrambling from term to term, claim to claim. Why? Because you don't know what you're talking about.

The contract is shared among adults and children of marriage.

Then show us any law or any court ruling who recognize children as a party to the marriage of their parents.

You can't. Your only source is you. And you don't know what you're talking about.

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..

All pseudo-legal gibberish. Oh, and you just contradicted yourself yet again:

The original contract created thousands of years ago did "marry" children to their parents.

Post 128
Foundation of American Law at Risk: Obergefell 2015 A Reversible Ruling?

Your argument is a pile of pseudo-legal horseshit. A babbling ball of nonsense even you can't keep straight, as you keep contradicting yourself. The reality is far, far simpler than your elaborate, self contradictory nonsense:

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

Maybe if you stopped obsessing about what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms…

It's not about what people do in the privacy of their bedroom. It's about perverts imposing their sickness on others without the consent of those others.

Especially when those "others" are children who are protected from adults as to their needs via the Infants Doctrine. Ancient law. And New York vs Ferber.

The Infant Doctrine has nothing to do with marriage.

Nope. Not a thing. The Infancy Doctrine is a legal rip cord, allowing minors to exit contracts that are found to be egregious. Its business law. It has nothing to do with marriage nor has ever been applied to marriage.

Nor can Sil find a single example of the Infancy Doctrine being applied to marriage. Which is why every time she cites it.....her source is herself.

And she has no idea what she's talking about.

 

[Skylar]

Maybe if you stopped obsessing about what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms…

It's not about what people do in the privacy of their bedroom. It's about perverts imposing their sickness on others without the consent of those others.

What do you have to 'consent' to for a gay couple to get married?

Nothing. You're irrelevant. Enjoy.

 

[Skylar]

I am going to try again. Children do not share in the marriage contract. There is no contractual provision, express or implied that a child can enforce.

Oh, children don't enforce necessity contracts: courts do.

No court recognizes children as parties to their parents marriage. Not express, implied, ancient, mystic, metaphysical or chicken fried. You're quoting yourself as the law, yourself as your only source on your 'children are married to their parents' gibberish. And no court nor law recognizes any of it.

Sil....what's the point of a 'legal' argument that isn't recognize by the law or any court?

And children do in fact implicitly share and enjoy the marriage contract...they were the reason it was created over a thousand years ago. To cure the ills of children being without a mother and father. You can blow hard until the cows come home but the facts surrounding infants and contract law are in the bedrock of the foundation of American law. You've got a long hard road ahead of you convincing a court that children aren't in any way shape or form part of marriage; or that they 'never derived enjoyments or necessities from the marriage contract'.

There's no 'road', Sil. There's no 'judge to convince'. Its just you, making shit up.

 

[sealybobo]

Maybe if you stopped obsessing about what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms…

It's not about what people do in the privacy of their bedroom. It's about perverts imposing their sickness on others without the consent of those others.

First we would have to agree with your premise that it's a sickness

 

[Skylar]

Maybe if you stopped obsessing about what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms…

It's not about what people do in the privacy of their bedroom. It's about perverts imposing their sickness on others without the consent of those others.

First we would have to agree with your premise that it's a sickness

Ah, but remember.....according to Bob, Bob defines everything. The meaning of words, the sole and absolute definition of marriage, what the constitution means, when the constitution has been violated, good, evil, right, wrong, everything.

If you don't start with this assumption and follow it unquestioningly.....Bob really has nothing to offer. As that's his entire argument.

 

[Inevitable]

Maybe if you stopped obsessing about what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms…

It's not about what people do in the privacy of their bedroom. It's about perverts imposing their sickness on others without the consent of those others.

First we would have to agree with your premise that it's a sickness

That isn't his premise. It's a sickness or it's a choice depending on what position is politically applicable to justifying his prejudice that with the particular argument he it's making.

It's called a movable goalpost. It's the cornerstone of all intellectually dishonest discussion.

 

[Silhouette]

That isn't his premise. It's a sickness or it's a choice depending on what position is politically applicable to justifying his prejudice that with the particular argument he it's making.

It's called a movable goalpost. It's the cornerstone of all intellectually dishonest discussion.

Translated: the troll "inevitable" is angry because I asked a question in the OP and poll which simply states a physical reality that around 90% of people agree with, and then I pointed out that the thing they feel is important is eradicated by gay marriage.

He's unhappy and therefore calls that simple logical guide-service a "dishonest discussion". He is even more angry because apparently it's a quite popular poll and shows that people feel that way left of center, center and right of center politically in a pivotal election year.

It's just too bad that reality interferes with your agenda. But the only one engaged in being dishonest, "inevitable" is the one denying that 90% of people think it's important kids have both a mom and dad AND that gay marriage cannot provide that "important" commodity 100% of the time. And it's a guarantee of failure to reach that necessity for the child's entire life.

 

[Katzndogz]

What you are missing is that the legal and medical communities know that forcing children into same sex parenting will damage them for life and they are okay with that.

 

[Silhouette]

What you are missing is that the legal and medical communities know that forcing children into same sex parenting will damage them for life and they are okay with that.

That hasn't been tested under oath in a court of law. And if it has and people beholden to the non-scientific entity "The American Psychological Association" now run by a politically correct LGBT mouthpiece (all medical entities look to them on issue of psychology as a reflex) testified, then a re-hearing is in order, using child advocates in court (lawyers for children's unique share in the marriage contract) calling their opposing expert testimonies..

 

[Skylar]

That isn't his premise. It's a sickness or it's a choice depending on what position is politically applicable to justifying his prejudice that with the particular argument he it's making.

It's called a movable goalpost. It's the cornerstone of all intellectually dishonest discussion.

Translated: the troll "inevitable" is angry because I asked a question in the OP and poll which simply states a physical reality that around 90% of people agree with, and then I pointed out that the thing they feel is important is eradicated by gay marriage.

The poll never so much as mentions eradicating gay marriage. That's your personal compulsive obsession.

As has been pointed out so many times before, you can't help by lie and misrepresent. We can look at the top of the page and *see* that you're lying. And you know we can. And still you can't help yourself.

 

[Skylar]

What you are missing is that the legal and medical communities know that forcing children into same sex parenting will damage them for life and they are okay with that.

That hasn't been tested under oath in a court of law.

The courts explicitly found that same sex marriage benefits children. You are quite simply ignoring the explicit findings of the Supreme Court and replacing it with your imagination.

That's not a legal argument.

Worse, the Supreme Court has found that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. You ignore this explicit finding of the Supreme Court, insisting that the right to marry is conditioned on children....because you say so.

That's not a legal argument either.

And if it has and people beholden to the non-scientific entity "The American Psychological Association" now run by a politically correct LGBT mouthpiece (all medical entities look to them on issue of psychology as a reflex) testified, then a re-hearing is in order, using child advocates in court (lawyers for children's unique share in the marriage contract) calling their opposing expert testimonies..

No court nor law recognizes that children are parties to the 'marriage contract'. You made that up. And then insist that your imagination is the law.

That's not a legal argument either.

 

[Katzndogz]

What you are missing is that the legal and medical communities know that forcing children into same sex parenting will damage them for life and they are okay with that.

That hasn't been tested under oath in a court of law.

The courts explicitly found that same sex marriage benefits children. You are quite simply ignoring the explicit findings of the Supreme Court and replacing it with your imagination.

That's not a legal argument.

Worse, the Supreme Court has found that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. You ignore this explicit finding of the Supreme Court, insisting that the right to marry is conditioned on children....because you say so.

That's not a legal argument either.

And if it has and people beholden to the non-scientific entity "The American Psychological Association" now run by a politically correct LGBT mouthpiece (all medical entities look to them on issue of psychology as a reflex) testified, then a re-hearing is in order, using child advocates in court (lawyers for children's unique share in the marriage contract) calling their opposing expert testimonies..

No court nor law recognizes that children are parties to the 'marriage contract'. You made that up. And then insist that your imagination is the law.

That's not a legal argument either.

The supreme Court found that same sex parents are a benefit to children because they are okay with raising damaged children into damaged adults. It's inclusive and diverse. Yes there is a price to be paid for all that inclusiveness and diversity. The court is prepared to pay it. They cannot force you to accept such diversity. They can lie and persuade. Ultimately it is up to the individual to accept or reject perversion for themselves and their own families.

 

[Katzndogz]

That isn't his premise. It's a sickness or it's a choice depending on what position is politically applicable to justifying his prejudice that with the particular argument he it's making.

It's called a movable goalpost. It's the cornerstone of all intellectually dishonest discussion.

Translated: the troll "inevitable" is angry because I asked a question in the OP and poll which simply states a physical reality that around 90% of people agree with, and then I pointed out that the thing they feel is important is eradicated by gay marriage.

He's unhappy and therefore calls that simple logical guide-service a "dishonest discussion". He is even more angry because apparently it's a quite popular poll and shows that people feel that way left of center, center and right of center politically in a pivotal election year.

It's just too bad that reality interferes with your agenda. But the only one engaged in being dishonest, "inevitable" is the one denying that 90% of people think it's important kids have both a mom and dad AND that gay marriage cannot provide that "important" commodity 100% of the time. And it's a guarantee of failure to reach that necessity for the child's entire life.

You still think that a mother and father are necessaries. They aren't. Mother's and father's walk out on their children every day. Have you ever seen a child enforce contract rights against a parent that walked out? The courts have never found a contract right to a parent.

The necessaries protected by the Infant Doctrine is food, clothing and water. If children could avoid contracts for necessaries, no one would ever provide those necessaries to children. It doesn't mean either a mother or a father.