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

[Silhouette]

Supreme Court reverses Alabama court that denied lesbian woman's adoption

A unanimous decision from the court.

That was a case where a woman had natural children that a former lesbian partner (are you with me still?...poor kids...) wanted rights to as adopted or some such.

This is more a case it seems of adult familiarity with a child already in their midst than some stranger going to an adoption agency where both parents of the children are unknown or not part of the potentially adoptive couple..

I know the cult of LGBT is going to try its damndest to build a legal bridge between the "lesbians can have natural kids and adopt them in partnership" to "any gays can come and blindly adopt kids from catholic orphanages"...but there are lawyers working on this problem as we speak. And, it doesn't change that 90% of people believe a child having both a mother and father in their life is important...

 

[Skylar]

Supreme Court reverses Alabama court that denied lesbian woman's adoption

A unanimous decision from the court.

That was a case where a woman had natural children that a former lesbian partner (are you with me still?...poor kids...) wanted rights to as adopted or some such.

This is more a case it seems of adult familiarity with a child already in their midst than some stranger going to an adoption agency where both parents of the children are unknown or not part of the potentially adoptive couple..

But Sil....what about your pseudo-legal horseshit about 'same sex parenting being child abuse' and how the court was going to overturn Obergefell to prevent it?

They just ruled unanimously to *preserve* what you insist they will oppose.

Have you ever gotten *any* legal prediction right? Any at all?

 

[mdk]

Supreme Court reverses Alabama court that denied lesbian woman's adoption

A unanimous decision from the court.

That was a case where a woman had natural children that a former lesbian partner (are you with me still?...poor kids...) wanted rights to as adopted or some such.

This is more a case it seems of adult familiarity with a child already in their midst than some stranger going to an adoption agency where both parents of the children are unknown or not part of the potentially adoptive couple..

I know the cult of LGBT is going to try its damndest to build a legal bridge between the "lesbians can have natural kids and adopt them in partnership" to "any gays can come and blindly adopt kids from catholic orphanages"...but there are lawyers working on this problem as we speak. And, it doesn't change that 90% of people believe a child having both a mother and father in their life is important...

No, this case was about Alabama ignoring full faith and credit of another state b/c gays are icky. All 8 of Justices told them they couldn't.


A private Cathloic adoption agency can place children with any person they see fit.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That was a case where a woman had natural children that a former lesbian partner (are you with me still?...poor kids...) wanted rights to as adopted or some such.

This is more a case it seems of adult familiarity with a child already in their midst than some stranger going to an adoption agency where both parents of the children are unknown or not part of the potentially adoptive couple..

I know the cult of LGBT is going to try its damndest to build a legal bridge between the "lesbians can have natural kids and adopt them in partnership" to "any gays can come and blindly adopt kids from catholic orphanages"...but there are lawyers working on this problem as we speak. And, it doesn't change that 90% of people believe a child having both a mother and father in their life is important...

Excuse me...

But under your logic that you claim about New York v. Ferber, this adoption would have been voided and the Supreme Court would have surely ruled that the other state did not have to recognize the adoption.

All because protecting the children would have voided the adoption.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

That was a case where a woman had natural children that a former lesbian partner (are you with me still?...poor kids...) wanted rights to as adopted or some such.

This is more a case it seems of adult familiarity with a child already in their midst than some stranger going to an adoption agency where both parents of the children are unknown or not part of the potentially adoptive couple..

I know the cult of LGBT is going to try its damndest to build a legal bridge between the "lesbians can have natural kids and adopt them in partnership" to "any gays can come and blindly adopt kids from catholic orphanages"...but there are lawyers working on this problem as we speak. And, it doesn't change that 90% of people believe a child having both a mother and father in their life is important...

Excuse me...

But under your logic that you claim about New York v. Ferber, this adoption would have been voided and the Supreme Court would have surely ruled that the other state did not have to recognize the adoption.

All because protecting the children would have voided the adoption.


>>>>

Her logic of Ferber would have been voided when the Supreme Court found that same sex marriage benefited children.

Friday's ruling was merely frosting on the layered 'desperate willful ignorance' cake that is Sil's argument.

 

[Silhouette]

Excuse me...

But under your logic that you claim about New York v. Ferber, this adoption would have been voided and the Supreme Court would have surely ruled that the other state did not have to recognize the adoption.

All because protecting the children would have voided the adoption.

Did I say I agreed with the Decision? No, I did not. Sexual orientation that deprives children of a father (or mother) can't take legal precedent to children's needs for a mother and father. This is going to be a tough challenge for the High Court. Almost as tough as clarifying for Tennessee who will write their laws on marriage to include homosexuals but to dis-include polygamy and incest...all in the name of using Loving and the 14th to forward homosexuality alone, while still excluding others (in the name of "marriage equality). Don't envy them at all. Except they only have themselves to blame because they had to have known that picking favorites in "marriage equality" when it comes to just a tiny slice among a sea of fetish sexual behaviors was going to lead to problems if anyone asked for clarification on how that is "marriage equality". If discernment is still allowed on which adults may or may not marry, who gets to decide that among a sea of sexual fetishes...all of which, including homosexuality, are repugnant legally to the majority?

 

[mdk]

Sexual orientation that deprives children of a father (or mother) can't take legal precedent to children's needs for a mother and father. This is going to be a tough challenge for the High Court

The court ruled 8-0 yesterday when it came to Alabama's ignoring an adoption that occurred in Georgia. Funny how your sexual orientation is allowed to deprive a child of a mother and father, though.

If you didn't have double standards you wouldn't have any.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Did I say I agreed with the Decision? No, I did not. Sexual orientation that deprives children of a father (or mother) can't take legal precedent to children's needs for a mother and father. This is going to be a tough challenge for the High Court.

It wasn't s tough decision at all. It was 8-0 by the High Court, states can't ignore the adoption of children by same-sex couples.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

Excuse me...

But under your logic that you claim about New York v. Ferber, this adoption would have been voided and the Supreme Court would have surely ruled that the other state did not have to recognize the adoption.

All because protecting the children would have voided the adoption.

Did I say I agreed with the Decision? No, I did not.

But you did indicate that the Supreme Court was going to overturn Obergefell using your logic. And the Supreme Court just stomped on your reasoning so hard it didn't even need to hold a hearing on the matter. With the ruling unanimous and delivered summarily.

Sil.....how many times must you be laughably wrong before you acknowledge that the process you use to make legal predictions just sucks? You've literally never been right.

Sexual orientation that deprives children of a father (or mother) can't take legal precedent to children's needs for a mother and father. This is going to be a tough challenge for the High Court.

Except that it isn't. As the summary ruling in explicit contradiction of your assumptions demonstrates. Their decision was unanimous.

Its gonna be quite the challenge for you though to convince the court to overturn itself based on your subjective opinion. Remember, its just you citing yourself. The court isn't obligated to refute any hapless batshit you make up. Or to disprove any of your pseudo-legal gibberish.

You made all that up.

 

[Skylar]

Did I say I agreed with the Decision? No, I did not. Sexual orientation that deprives children of a father (or mother) can't take legal precedent to children's needs for a mother and father. This is going to be a tough challenge for the High Court.

It wasn't s tough decision at all. It was 8-0 by the High Court, states can't ignore the adoption of children by same-sex couples.


>>>>

They didn't even need a hearing. That's how much of a no-brainer it was.

 

[mdk]

They didn't even need a hearing. That's how much of a no-brainer it was

The lawsuit filed by Dave from Tennessee is going to put a stop to all this gay marriage shit. Just you wait and see. lol

 

[Skylar]

They didn't even need a hearing. That's how much of a no-brainer it was

The lawsuit filed by Dave from Tennessee is going to put a stop to all this gay marriage shit. Just you wait and see. lol

The one filed in COUNTY court?

You can just smell the waves of quiet desperation radiating off of Sil with her quivering insistence that this random lawsuit in COUNTY court is going to overturn the Obergefell ruling.

 

[mdk]

They didn't even need a hearing. That's how much of a no-brainer it was

The lawsuit filed by Dave from Tennessee is going to put a stop to all this gay marriage shit. Just you wait and see. lol

The one filed in COUNTY court?

You can just smell the waves of quiet desperation radiating off of Sil with her quivering insistence that this random lawsuit in COUNTY court is going to overturn the Obergefell ruling.

Now she alluding that she doesn't agree with the Ferber ruling despite gassing on about it for weeks. Apparently Sil is siding with porn peddler, Paul Ferber. lol

 

[Syriusly]

'the consequences' being millions of same gender couples enjoying the same legal marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

Marriage is only between a man and a woman, .

Yet same gender couples now are enjoying the same legal marriage as my wife and I enjoy. You are not happy with this- but legally Bob and Joe's marriage is exactly the same as my wife and my marriage.

The consequence being- more married couples who want to be married.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course, the judges who made these decisions will not be the ones to bear the consequences of them. Those who will pay the price are not being given a voice or a choice.

What consequences are prices being paid for?

Fatherless children, for one thing. Children willfully and deliberately deprived of a father.

Motherless children, for another. Children willfully and deliberately deprived of a mother.

The children that are being deliberately harmed and abused in this unconscionable manner are not being given any voice or representation. They are being thrown under the bus, their needs completely disregarded, in order to cater to immoral perverts.

"Gay Marriage" doesn't actually do any of those things. Frankly what you are describing is 'divorce'

If June and Jane have two kids and are raising them together- their kids have no father- when they marry- that doesn't change- except their kids have the legal protections of having two married parents. Whether June or Jane are married doesn't make 'fatherless children'

What you are against are homosexuals raising kids.

So what do you want to do to prevent homosexuals from having kids Bob?

• forced sterilization of homosexuals?
• the forcible removal of children from their homosexual parents?
• leaving kids to be abandoned in the streets rather than let otherwise qualified homosexual parents adopt them?

Tell us your alternative Bob.

Because 'marriage' is not what results in 'fatherless kids'- divorce is what results in fatherless kids.

 

[Syriusly]

Society is less likely to get a future taxpayer or two out of the same sex relationships, but otherwise, a same sex couple can have the same sort of relationship as any other couple except that more people will question the legitimacy of that emotional commitment than they will that of an opposite sex couple.

This isn't about taxpayers or the adults carrying on with each other. This is about what children got out of marriage for over a thousand years: a guaranteed mother and father. .

Silhouette- are you in favor of incestuous marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

Acknowledge gay marriage, deny marriage to gays.....and same sex parents are still same sex parents. The only difference as far as the children are concerned is that recognizing same sex marriage benefits the children. Denying same sex marriage to their parents hurts those children.

Willfully depriving children of a mother or of a father, is what hurts them. Giving legal blessing to this deprivation does nothing to mitigate the harm that it causes.
.

So tell us all about how you are fighting to end legal divorce.

Because that is what you are talking about- giving legal blessings to 'this depravation'.

 

[Syriusly]

We need better supreme Court justices.

With Scalia's replacement, we will.

We need to replace Ginsberg and the two lezzies, Kagan and Sotomayor.

Normalcy should by the number one qualification.

So you don't want Jews or Puerto Ricans or women as Justices.......no shock there....

 

[Syriusly]

What speech did the folks who ordered a cake at 'Sweet Cakes' demand? Specifically.

None. Making your 'slogan' analogy nonsense. They simply ordered a cake. And were denied due to their sexual orientation. Which is explicitly forbidden by Oregon PA laws...

No, what they ordered was a GAY WEDDING cake. And that's the difference in Jude 1 that is forbidden

Jude 1 doesn't mention homosexuals or cakes.

But the Bible does tell Christians to follow the law.

More specifically- Nowhere in the New Testament does it ever tell Christians explicitly not to do business with homosexuals.

BUT the New Testament EXPLICITLY tells Christians to follow the law

13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.
The authorities that exist have been established by God.
2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.
Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.
4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason.
They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

Another example of person's cherry picking what part of the Bible that they want to quote- in order to discriminate against homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

Excuse me...

But under your logic that you claim about New York v. Ferber, this adoption would have been voided and the Supreme Court would have surely ruled that the other state did not have to recognize the adoption.

All because protecting the children would have voided the adoption.

This is going to be a tough challenge for the High Court.

Wrong tense- the 'High Court' has already dealt with same gender marriage- its legal.

In all 50 states.