Trump Attended Gay Weddings: Called Them "Beautiful" Says It's a Done Deal

[Stephanie]

Oh I'm sure it will make him more popular with his supporters. It doesn't matter. I just thought they should know before they voted for him where he stands on this particular issue.. You know, instead of slinging insults. It's an issue that matters to 90% of Americans: whether or not children should be legally stripped of either a mother or father for life as a matter of binding contract (gay marriage)...

you get all that just from him attending a wedding?

 

[Silhouette]

Oh I'm sure it will make him more popular with his supporters. It doesn't matter. I just thought they should know before they voted for him where he stands on this particular issue.. You know, instead of slinging insults. It's an issue that matters to 90% of Americans: whether or not children should be legally stripped of either a mother or father for life as a matter of binding contract (gay marriage)...

you get all that just from him attending a wedding?

Yeah, watch the youtubes in the OP. And, if you're capable of logical deduction and rational reasoning, gay marriage = children being without a mother or father for life as a contractual imposition upon them....100% of the time gays "marry"..

 

[mdk]

Cripple Fight!

 

[Skylar]

Oh I'm sure it will make him more popular with his supporters. It doesn't matter. I just thought they should know before they voted for him where he stands on this particular issue.. You know, instead of slinging insults. It's an issue that matters to 90% of Americans: whether or not children should be legally stripped of either a mother or father for life as a matter of binding contract (gay marriage)...

you get all that just from him attending a wedding?

Yeah, watch the youtubes in the OP. And, if you're capable of logical deduction and rational reasoning, gay marriage = children being without a mother or father for life as a contractual imposition upon them....100% of the time gays "marry"..

'Contractual imposition'? You have no idea what the term even means.

That's forcing a new contract on a person. But no law nor court recognizes that a marriage of parents is a minor contract on their children. Making a 'contractual imposition' impossible....as the child has no contract.

And as far as I understand, contractual imposition is something that happens under United Kingdom law. Not US.

You're just making up more pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[Skylar]

I hate faggots as much as you but your obsession with this is unhealthy. Really it is. Its a done deal! The ONLY way to change it is the country collapses or the SC changes its ruling.

Yeah...I believe you're ACTUALLY a conservative...lol.. You're certainly not a lawyer. Because if you were, you'd know how easy it would be to undo Obergefell (gay marriage) Ruling last Summer... Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.

Um, Sil......Ferber doesn't even mention marriage. Let alone find that same sex marriage hurts any kid.

You made all that up.

And your imagination has no relevance to Obergefell or any other court ruling. As legally, you're nobody.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and this is thread 53

 

[Silhouette]

Um, Sil......Ferber doesn't even mention marriage. Let alone find that same sex marriage hurts any kid...You made all that up.....And your imagination has no relevance to Obergefell or any other court ruling. As legally, you're nobody.

Ferber says that an adult Constitutional right may not be exercised if it harms children either physically or psychologically. So, all that's left to find is, "does stripping a child of either mother or father for life via a contractual bind cause mental injury to children?"

It's going to be a pretty simple legal argument. BTW, Loving v Virginia mentioned nothing about gay sex behaviors, but you ran that one across the finish line last Summer, didn't you? So don't be a hypocrite saying a previous court case can't be used to demonstrate an argument in a current one.

 

[Skylar]

Um, Sil......Ferber doesn't even mention marriage. Let alone find that same sex marriage hurts any kid...You made all that up.....And your imagination has no relevance to Obergefell or any other court ruling. As legally, you're nobody.

Ferber says that an adult Constitutional right may not be exercised if it harms children either physically or psychologically. So, all that's left to find is, "does stripping a child of either mother or father for life via a contractual bind cause mental injury to children?"

The Supreme Court already found that denying same sex children hurts children. And that recognizing it benefits children. Simply destroying your entire argument. They've also found that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. Destroying your argument again.

You're ignoring the Supreme Court and replacing their findings with your imagination. And then laughably insisting that the Supreme Court will ignore the Supreme Court and enforce your imagination.

Um, nope. None of that is happening.

 

[mdk]

Ferber says that an adult Constitutional right may not be exercised if it harms children either physically or psychologically. So, all that's left to find is, "does stripping a child of either mother or father for life via a contractual bind cause mental injury to children?"

Using this silly logic Ferber would also ban divorce but something tells me you have an exemption for those people, though.

 

[Silhouette]

Trying to spam my points away again eh?

 

[Silhouette]

Um, Sil......Ferber doesn't even mention marriage. Let alone find that same sex marriage hurts any kid...You made all that up.....And your imagination has no relevance to Obergefell or any other court ruling. As legally, you're nobody.

Ferber says that an adult Constitutional right may not be exercised if it harms children either physically or psychologically. So, all that's left to find is, "does stripping a child of either mother or father for life via a contractual bind cause mental injury to children?"

It's going to be a pretty simple legal argument. BTW, Loving v Virginia mentioned nothing about gay sex behaviors, but you ran that one across the finish line last Summer, didn't you? So don't be a hypocrite saying a previous court case can't be used to demonstrate an argument in a current one.

Using this silly logic Ferber would also ban divorce but something tells me you have an exemption for those people, though.

No. Divorce is also about helping children when the atmosphere in the home becomes mentally injurious to them. And states grant divorce reluctantly. You're right, there is an answer to it too. Court's bend over backwards to make sure the children involved in divorce still keep in regular contact with .......*drum roll* BOTH the mother and father! Anyone divorced with kids will tell you that when it comes to the kids, essentially they're still married until those kids reach adult age.

 

[Skylar]

Trying to spam my points away again eh?

You have 53 threads up on the same topic. There's nothing to you but spam.

And your pseudo-legal argument runs into the same problem every time: the Supreme Court has already contradicted you point for point in the Obergefell ruling. And Ferber says nothing you do. It doesn't even mention marriage, let alone find that same sex marriage hurts anyone.

Your imagining passages that don't exist in Ferber, and insisting they are the law. And you're ignoring findings in Obergefell, replacing them with your imagination.

None of that is a legal argument

 

[Skylar]

Um, Sil......Ferber doesn't even mention marriage. Let alone find that same sex marriage hurts any kid...You made all that up.....And your imagination has no relevance to Obergefell or any other court ruling. As legally, you're nobody.

Ferber says that an adult Constitutional right may not be exercised if it harms children either physically or psychologically. So, all that's left to find is, "does stripping a child of either mother or father for life via a contractual bind cause mental injury to children?"

The Supreme Court already found that denying same sex children hurts children. And that recognizing it benefits children. Simply destroying your entire argument. They've also found that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. Destroying your argument again.

You're ignoring the Supreme Court and replacing their findings with your imagination. And then laughably insisting that the Supreme Court will ignore the Supreme Court and enforce your imagination.

Um, nope. None of that is happening.

No. Divorce is also about helping children when the atmosphere in the home becomes mentally injurious to them. And states grant divorce reluctantly. You're right, there is an answer to it too. Court's bend over backwards to make sure the children involved in divorce still keep in regular contact with .......*drum roll* BOTH the mother and father! Anyone divorced with kids will tell you that when it comes to the kids, essentially they're still married until those kids reach adult age.

Says you, citing you. There's no requirement that the atmosphere in a home be 'mentally injurous' for children before the parents can divorce.

You made that up.

Your entire argument is just discrete layers of you making up requirements that don't exist, inventing pseudo-legal gibberish that no law or court recognizes, and ignoring the actual law and court rulings.

None of that is a legal argument.

 

[mdk]

No. Divorce is also about helping children when the atmosphere in the home becomes mentally injurious to them. And states grant divorce reluctantly. You're right, there is an answer to it too. Court's bend over backwards to make sure the children involved in divorce still keep in regular contact with .......*drum roll* BOTH the mother and father!

And by reluctantly you mean the divorce is granted if the checks clear. The courts do bend over backwards, but only if the parents want to keep in regular contact with their children. The court can't order you to have regular contact with your child. So much for your 'child's right to having a mother and father for life' bullshit.

 

[Silhouette]

No. Divorce is also about helping children when the atmosphere in the home becomes mentally injurious to them. And states grant divorce reluctantly. You're right, there is an answer to it too. Court's bend over backwards to make sure the children involved in divorce still keep in regular contact with .......*drum roll* BOTH the mother and father!

And by reluctantly you mean the divorce is granted if the checks clear. The courts do bend over backwards, but only if the parents want to keep in regular contact with their children. The court can't order you to have regular contact with your child. So much for your 'child's right to having a mother and father for life' bullshit.

Wonder what your take on a guardian ad litem is for kids during divorce? Because the court doesn't consider children as having unique rights in the marriage? If a parent "takes off".. they don't leave financially, the court will hound them down and force them to commit to the children until they are of age.

 

[Skylar]

No. Divorce is also about helping children when the atmosphere in the home becomes mentally injurious to them. And states grant divorce reluctantly. You're right, there is an answer to it too. Court's bend over backwards to make sure the children involved in divorce still keep in regular contact with .......*drum roll* BOTH the mother and father!

And by reluctantly you mean the divorce is granted if the checks clear. The courts do bend over backwards, but only if the parents want to keep in regular contact with their children. The court can't order you to have regular contact with your child. So much for your 'child's right to having a mother and father for life' bullshit.

Wonder what your take on a guardian ad litem is for kids during divorce? Because the court doesn't consider children as having unique rights in the marriage? If a parent "takes off".. they don't leave financially, the court will hound them down and force them to commit to the children until they are of age.

Guardian ad litem are uncommon in divorce proceedings, acting as fact finders when they are called on. Most divorce proceedings never see one.

They are not a requirement for any divorce proceeding. Nor are they are requirement for any Supreme Court hearing. Nor does divorce require a 'mentally injurous environment for children'.

You've made all that up.

 

[mdk]

No. Divorce is also about helping children when the atmosphere in the home becomes mentally injurious to them. And states grant divorce reluctantly. You're right, there is an answer to it too. Court's bend over backwards to make sure the children involved in divorce still keep in regular contact with .......*drum roll* BOTH the mother and father!

And by reluctantly you mean the divorce is granted if the checks clear. The courts do bend over backwards, but only if the parents want to keep in regular contact with their children. The court can't order you to have regular contact with your child. So much for your 'child's right to having a mother and father for life' bullshit.

Wonder what your take on a guardian ad litem is for kids during divorce? Because the court doesn't consider children as having unique rights in the marriage? If a parent "takes off".. they don't leave financially, the court will hound them down and force them to commit to the children until they are of age.

You thinking cutting a monthly check means a child has a parent in their life? No wonder you believe hope is the same as having a parent. lol

 

[mdk]

I wonder why Sil isn't gassing on about how Trump was going to do so dreadfully as a result of gay marriage? Trump seems to be having a rather good evening despite Sil's warnings. Too funny.

 

[Skylar]

I wonder why Sil isn't gassing on about how Trump was going to do so dreadfully as a result of gay marriage? Trump seems to be having a rather good evening despite Sil's warnings. Too funny.

I'm the wrong person to ask. I generally have no idea what Sil is thinking when she comes up with this pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[theHawk]

...And if you support that and also support Trump, you're going to be thrilled that's his stance. But if you support Trump thinking he's going to change from the GOP establishment (who waffled and remained silent while gay marriage was forced on your state) and give you something different on this particular issue (should you care, like 90% of the American public that children should have both a mother and father in marriage) it's time to wake up and smell the Rainbow... For what your fellow Americans are thinking about depriving kids via a lifelong contractual bind, of either a father or mother (gay marriage): Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

I just believe voters should be informed about their candidate. I'm not going to insult the size of his dick, or say he has bad hair or that he's too old like Grandma Hillary or Grandpa Sanders (Trump's turning 70 this June). I'm just going to let his voters know that if they think they're going to see less Kim Davis' in jail in the next four years, they're likely to be very disappointed in Trump after the gate slams shut and their votes got him where he wants to be: in power.

View the media, then you be the judge of where you think President Trump will take our country on the nuclear family.

So says Donald's friend and co-worker, LGBT activist George Takei. Takei speaks about his conversation at lunch while they worked together on the Apprentice show..

George Takai says Trump calls gay marriage beautiful and that Trump actually supports gay marriage but will say anything to his "base" to get elected..

Cue 1:14-1:58 (Trump calls gay marriage "beautiful") .....& ...(where Takai says Trump supports gay marriage but will say anything to get elected) > 3:59- 5:19....



On Trump's "strength" "opposed" to gay marraige. Know what you're getting voters...

Donald Trump could perform a gay wedding himself, and the rabid liberals will still call him a bigot and racist.

Donald Trump could perform a gay wedding himself, and the rabid Trumpsters will still call him a Conservative....

Real conservatives don't have any issues with gay wedding ceremonies. We have an issue with those gays trying to force us to accept such a thing as a normal legal marriage and with it the privileges that come with it. But, I don't expect dumb liberals to understand that distinction.