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

[Silhouette]

You are misrepresenting your poll. The question--noted at the top of your poll--was: "Did you have regular contact with both a mother and father in life & think it was important?"

Marriage is regular contact with both a mother and father. "Gay marriage" bans that contact of one or the other FOREVER. I'm not interested in your extremely rare exception elective-scenarios. I'm talking about the preponderance of "gay marriage" that isolates children away from either a mom or dad for life, as a matter of binding contract.

 

[Skylar]

You are misrepresenting your poll. The question--noted at the top of your poll--was: "Did you have regular contact with both a mother and father in life & think it was important?"

Marriage is regular contact with both a mother and father. "Gay marriage" bans that contact of one or the other FOREVER. I'm not interested in your extremely rare exception elective-scenarios. I'm talking about the preponderance of "gay marriage" that isolates children away from either a mom or dad for life, as a matter of binding contract.

You're trying so hard to make your pseudo-legal gibberish to sound like actual law. Tossing in 'preponderance' and 'binding contract' and the like.

But you still have no idea what you're talking about. First, the Supreme Court has found that denying same sex marriage hurts children. And recognizing same sex marriage helps children. So the court has explicitly contradicting your foundational assumptions that denying same sex marriage and children.

Ending any 'legal' argument. As you've been reduced to straight up ignoring the explicit findings of the Supreme Court. And no court will do the same.

Second, children aren't parties to the marriage of their parents. Not direct parties, no implied parties, no explict parties, not third party beneficiaries. Making all your 'binding contract' gibberish meaningless. As none of you pseudo-legal assumptions are reflected in the actual law. Ending any 'legal' argument a second time.

Third,the Supreme Court has explicitly found that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. Ending your 'legal' argument a third time.

Remember....just because you recite nonsense to yourself doesn't mean that the law changes.

 

[Silhouette]

Third,the Supreme Court has explicitly found that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. Ending your 'legal' argument a third time.

Remember....just because you recite nonsense to yourself doesn't mean that the law changes.

Who was there representing children's unique rights to the marriage contract. The Court did not Find that states couldn't and shouldn't anticipate that children will arrive in marriage. As such, children who have shared the contract implicitly for over a thousand years had no representation at the contract-revision hearing (Obergefell) which is forbidden by contract law. All parties must attend or be represented.

 

[Skylar]

Third,the Supreme Court has explicitly found that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. Ending your 'legal' argument a third time.

Remember....just because you recite nonsense to yourself doesn't mean that the law changes.

Who was there representing children's unique rights to the marriage contract.

Who says that there has to be representation for 'children's unique rights' in any Supreme court hearing? That would be you citing your imagination again. There is no such requirement. In fact the Supreme Court has NEVER had a 'representative' for 'all children' in any hearing the court has ever heard. You've literally hallucinated it.

Seriously, you no idea what you're talking about. None. Guessing would produce better results than the endless stream of pseudo-legal gibberish you've spouted.

The Court did not Find that states couldn't and shouldn't anticipate that children will arrive in marriage.

The court explicitly found that the right to marry is not conditioned on children or the ability to have them. Says who? Says Obergefell.

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.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Yet once again, you've ignored the explicit findings of the Supreme Court and replaced it with whatever pseudo-legal babble you imagine. And then laughably insist that the Supreme Court is bound to your babble.

Laughing....no, it isn't. No one is bound to your imagination.

As such, children who have shared the contract implicitly for over a thousand years had no representation at the contract-revision hearing (Obergefell) which is forbidden by contract law. All parties must attend or be represented.

Children are not parties to the marriage of their parents. Not implicit parties, not explicit parties, not third party beneficiaries. Nor can you cite any law or court ruling that finds that they are. Its just more of the pseudo-legal nonsense that you've made up. The comforting lies you tell yourself on a topic you know nothing about. And your imagination is legally meaningless.

As such, your argument has no legal relevance.

You can't get around that.

 

[Silhouette]

A court has not heard the specific question of whether or not children are implicit parties to the marriage contract. So you can't make your claim in bold definitively.

 

[Skylar]

A court has not heard the specific question of whether or not children are implicit parties to the marriage contract. So you can't make your claim in bold definitively.

The court has already rejected your fundamental assumptions by finding that same sex marriage benefits children and denying same sex hurts children.

Worse still for your pseudo-legal nonsense......they've already found that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. Making your entire argument moot.

And of course, none of your blithering nonsense about children being parties to the marriage of their parents has the slightest relevance as it has nothing to do with our laws. Same with your 'representation at a Supreme Court' hearing babble.

You've imagined all of it. And your imagination is legally irrelevant. Ignore the Supreme Court all you like. It doesn't matter.

 

[ChrisL]

I think what is more important is that you have good role models in your life. You can have a mother and a father who are drunkards, drug addicts, etc.

 

[Skylar]

I think what is more important is that you have good role models in your life. You can have a mother and a father who are drunkards, drug addicts, etc.

And that's a great point. I'll give it to two loving parents of any gender if they're committed to their kids and invest the time in raising them.

 

[Syriusly]

Tell me again how denying marriage to same sex parents remedies any 'problem' you've cited?

For example, if a lesbian couple has a child.....and the State denies the lesbian couple marriage, do they magically become an opposite sex parents?

Suffice to say if a wolf adopts a human child and successfully raises it,.

Wolves eat children- they don't adopt them.

Yet- you would prefer a wolf to a lesbian.

Things that make people go 'ewwwwww'

 

[Syriusly]

I think what is more important is that you have good role models in your life. You can have a mother and a father who are drunkards, drug addicts, etc.

Exactly.

Silhouette is hardly honest about any of this issue.

She says she is against incestuous marriage- yet that Brother Sister marriage meets her definition of what marriage is all about- but I don't think that pairing is an ideal married couple or ideal parents.

I think that it would be great for a child to have both a loving mother and father who were committed to raising their children heart and soul.

But we don't require that of ANY parent- Silhouette wants to require it for homosexuals.

We allow single mothers to be parents, we allow crack addicts to be parents, we allow distant emotionally abusive persons to be parents.

I am for a child having at least one good- committed parent- preferably two- and heck I will even go so far and say I think it would be best for a child to have a mother and a father.

But it would also be better for a child to have two good mothers- rather than one good mother.

To have two good fathers rather than just one good father.

 

[Syriusly]

You are misrepresenting your poll. The question--noted at the top of your poll--was: "Did you have regular contact with both a mother and father in life & think it was important?"

Marriage is regular contact with both a mother and father..

So a marriage between a brother and a sister who were the mother and father would fit your definition- and would be preferable to a single mother as a parent?

 

[Silhouette]

So a marriage between a brother and a sister who were the mother and father would fit your definition- and would be preferable to a single mother as a parent?

No, they would be equally detestable for different reasons. Brother and sister would teach the children "procreation with your close blood relatives is a good thing". I can show you pictures in livestock of what happens when inbreeding becomes a cultural norm if you like?

And with the single parent, it is not good because the child is being deprived of either a mother or father at present...but the hope still remains because there's no contractual bind mandating "single parent for life" like there is with an incest-marriage or gay-marriage contract. I know you know the difference between unfortunate situations and contractual binds and norms.

In all contractually-binding cases the children's consideration comes first, the adult's second; as required by law.

 

[Syriusly]

So a marriage between a brother and a sister who were the mother and father would fit your definition- and would be preferable to a single mother as a parent?

No, they would be equally detestable for different reasons. Brother and sister would teach the children "procreation with your close blood relatives is a good thing"..

But you said the "marriage contract was all about providing children with a mother and father"- and incestuous marriage would do exactly that.

So tell us what your new modified fictional marriage contract is?

 

[Skylar]

So a marriage between a brother and a sister who were the mother and father would fit your definition- and would be preferable to a single mother as a parent?

No, they would be equally detestable for different reasons. Brother and sister would teach the children "procreation with your close blood relatives is a good thing"..

But you said the "marriage contract was all about providing children with a mother and father"- and incestuous marriage would do exactly that.

So tell us what your new modified fictional marriage contract is?

Laughing......its fun to watch her modify her made up nonsense on the fly. Its like listening to a 4 year old point their finger and pretend its an 'invisible anti-shield laser gun'.

 

[Silhouette]

Laughing......its fun to watch her modify her made up nonsense on the fly. Its like listening to a 4 year old point their finger and pretend its an 'invisible anti-shield laser gun'.

Are you laughing about the 90% who believe a child having both a mother and father is important?

 

[Skylar]

Laughing......its fun to watch her modify her made up nonsense on the fly. Its like listening to a 4 year old point their finger and pretend its an 'invisible anti-shield laser gun'.

Are you laughing about the 90% who believe a child having both a mother and father is important?

I'm going to laugh as your imaginary pseudo-legal gibberish is desperately changed to try and shore up one self contradicting hole in your reasoning after another.

As *none* of your made up 'requirements' or silliness about 'contracts' has a thing to do with our laws. Which you kindly demonstrate for us every time you make up a new imaginary 'requirement'.

 

[Silhouette]

Laugh all you want. Have you looked at the poll results recently ^^ ?...

 

[rightwinger]

Would you rather have a single mother or two mothers in your life?

 

[Silhouette]

Would you rather have a single mother or two mothers in your life?

Single....with the hope of a father to come some day..

 

[rightwinger]

Would you rather have a single mother or two mothers in your life?

Single....with the hope of a father to come some day..

Hope?

Why not have two adults who love and support you rather than "hope" your lesbian mother finds a husband?