Another 2017 LGBT Court Case, & Specifically Gay Adoption Of Unwanted Kids: A Poll

[Silhouette]

A reasonable person after reading the OP would at the least suspect child endangerment. As such, they are required to act. And still you won't talk about that.. By the way, a reasonable person includes a judge or Justice of the US Supreme Court.

A reasonable person wouldn't ignore the explicit findings of the Supreme Court in a discussion about the law.


You're stuck. You can't get past this. You're been stuck here for years, Sil. And you've made zero progress.

I note you're still not willing to discuss how reporting even SUSPECTED child endangerment is a REQUIREMENT of law.

 

[Skylar]

A reasonable person after reading the OP would at the least suspect child endangerment. As such, they are required to act. And still you won't talk about that.. By the way, a reasonable person includes a judge or Justice of the US Supreme Court.

A reasonable person wouldn't ignore the explicit findings of the Supreme Court in a discussion about the law.


You're stuck. You can't get past this. You're been stuck here for years, Sil. And you've made zero progress.

I note you're still not willing to discuss how reporting even SUSPECTED child endangerment is a REQUIREMENT of law.

I'm not willing to ignore the Supreme Courts explicit findings that bans on same sex marriages harm children;

The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Obergefell v. Hodges

Your imagination about 'child endangerment' doesn't change a single word in the Obergefell ruling. Or its utter destruction of your entire argument. And ignoring the Supreme Court isn't a legal argument, Sil.

You're still stuck.

 

[Syriusly]

No Syriusly. People just don't want boys & girls banished for life from fathers & mothers using the force of law through a contract. Gay marriage is that contract. Go back & read the OP.

Going back and reading nonsense doesn't change the nonsense.

Your own 'poll' shows most people are glad to have gay couples adopt the children abandoned by their straight parents.

And of course as my poll showed- 67% of USMB unequivocally supports marriage equality.

And of course your crap about the contracts and banishment is just of course crap.

 

[Syriusly]

Well the facts in the OP find that gay marriage harms children.

You are confusing what the voices in your head tell you with 'facts'

The fact is that the courts have recognized that what you promote harms children.

Yet you still continue to promote what you know will harm children.

 

[Syriusly]

Let me repeat something you skipped over just now:

And the laws protecting children read such & uniquely that if one even suspects harm one is required to act on kids' behalf even without proof. Did you know that?

After reading the OP, I and others suspect harm. That's problematic. Another thing you and readers here should bear in mind is that not only should you act to protect when you just suspect harm (but have no proof necessarily), you are required by law to act.

You can repeat your personal opinion as much as you like. The Supreme Court still contradicts you, finding that bans on same sex marriage hurt and humiliate children.

The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Obergefell v. Hodges

That's their legal findings. And in any discussion of the law, the findings of the Supreme Court trump your imagination.

I love it when Silly cites herself.

Next up in the insanity parade: Where Silhouette looks forward to having Supreme Court justices that understand the "Infancy Doctrine' as well as she does......because she doesn't think any of the current justices understand it.

 

[Syriusly]

A reasonable person after reading the OP would at the least suspect child endangerment. As such, they are required to act. And still you won't talk about that.. By the way, a reasonable person includes a judge or Justice of the US Supreme Court.

Yet not one judge- or Justice of the Supreme Court- agrees with you.

But if you suspect child endangerment- you have an obligation to report it to law enforcement.

Have you?

 

[Syriusly]

A reasonable person after reading the OP would at the least suspect child endangerment. As such, they are required to act. And still you won't talk about that.. By the way, a reasonable person includes a judge or Justice of the US Supreme Court.

A reasonable person wouldn't ignore the explicit findings of the Supreme Court in a discussion about the law.


You're stuck. You can't get past this. You're been stuck here for years, Sil. And you've made zero progress.

I note you're still not willing to discuss how reporting even SUSPECTED child endangerment is a REQUIREMENT of law.

When you can tell us about which law enforcement you reported this to- we can talk.

But until then- according to your own very bizarre 'logic'- you are violating the law by not going to law enforcement- so why would we 'debate' with a criminal?

 

[Silhouette]

Whether or not a judge agrees or disagrees with evident suspicions of child endangerment is irrelevant. Judges are not gods & the laws requiring action still apply...even to them. They can be subject to punitive review for abetting child endangerment & failure to protect.

 

[Skylar]

Whether or not a judge agrees or disagrees with evident suspicions of child endangerment is irrelevant.

Oh, its immediately relevant. And its why your latest pseudo-legal babble will have no legal relevance. As your claims don't exist in the law. Nor would they convince a judge, police officer or reasonable person to do......anything.

Which is why you do nothing. Its all you can do.

Judges are not gods & the laws requiring action still apply...even to them. They can be subject to punitive review for abetting child endangerment & failure to protect.

Alas, your imagination compels no judge to do anything. And your imagination is all you have.

Enjoy irrelevance.

 

[Silhouette]

All judges are subject to following the law, including child protection laws requiring action EVEN IF JUST SUSPICION BUT NO FACTS are involved. If they fail to follow the law, judges can be taken from the bench. And thank God for that, otherwise they would be acting like gods. Which come to think of it, explains Obergefell.

 

[Skylar]

All judges are subject to following the law, including child protection laws requiring action EVEN IF JUST SUSPICION BUT NO FACTS are involved. If they fail to follow the law, judges can be taken from the bench. And thank God for that, otherwise they would be acting like gods. Which come to think of it, explains Obergefell.

Your imagination isn't the law, Sil.

The Supreme Court has found that same sex couples have a right to marriage. And that banning same sex marriage harms and humiliates children.

You ignore these findings....and then insist that all judges an police must ignore them too.

Laughing.....no, Sil. No they don't.

 

[mdk]

How many times has Sil reported David Upjohn and Andrew Daniels to police?

 

[Syriusly]

All judges are subject to following the law, including child protection laws requiring action EVEN IF JUST SUSPICION BUT NO FACTS are involved. If they fail to follow the law, judges can be taken from the bench. And thank God for that, otherwise they would be acting like gods. Which come to think of it, explains Obergefell.

If you suspect any child abuse- report it to the police. If you don't report it to the police- then you are just making crap up and don't give a damn about kids.

Which come to think of it- is exactly what you do.

 

[Syriusly]

Whether or not a judge agrees or disagrees with evident suspicions of child endangerment is irrelevant. Judges are not gods & the laws requiring action still apply...even to them. They can be subject to punitive review for abetting child endangerment & failure to protect.

When you can tell us about which law enforcement you reported this to- we can talk.

But until then- according to your own very bizarre 'logic'- you are violating the law by not going to law enforcement- so why would we 'debate' with a criminal?

 

[Silhouette]

Well the "no" and "still not sure" vote has the lead here. Which is cause for concern for the courts considering the matter of the OP: Dumont v Lyon in Michigan.

 

[Skylar]

Well the "no" and "still not sure" vote has the lead here. Which is cause for concern for the courts considering the matter of the OP: Dumont v Lyon in Michigan.

No, SIl...it isn't. As your personal opinion doesn't change court rulings.

 

[Syriusly]

Well the "no" and "still not sure" vote has the lead here. .

The Yes still has the lead here. Not that your 'poll' means anything- but it does show you will lie about anything.

1. Yes
   14 vote(s)
   48.3%
2. No
   13 vote(s)
   44.8%
3. Still not sure
   2 vote(s)
   6.9%

Meanwhile- have you reported the abuse you claim is happening- to the police?

If you haven't- then you are- by your own 'standards' - you are a criminal.