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

[Syriusly]

Also. How many gay men or lesbians have come forward to say they are not pround of these infamous sexuality-specific parades in public?

Why would anyone?

About 1,000,000 people attended this years SF Pride Parade- with 250 contingents marching in the parade.

And the amazing thing is- if you don't want to attend- no one will force you to.

[img class="rsImg imageCreatorType rsMainSlideImage" data-imgsrc="http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/kgo/images/cms/2146012.jpg" data-rsbigimg="http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/kgo/images/cms/2146012_1280x720.jpg" data-rstmb="http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/kgo/images/cms/2146012_630x354.jpg" alt="

Thousands attended San Francisco's annual Pride Parade on Sunday, June 25, 2017." src="http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/kgo/images/cms/2146012_630x354.jpg">

[img class="rsImg imageCreatorType rsMainSlideImage" data-imgsrc="http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/kgo/images/cms/2146008.jpg" data-rsbigimg="http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/kgo/images/cms/2146008_1280x720.jpg" data-rstmb="http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/kgo/images/cms/2146008_630x354.jpg" alt="

Thousands attended San Francisco's annual Pride Parade on Sunday, June 25, 2017." src="http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/kgo/images/cms/2146008_630x354.jpg">

 

[Syriusly]

^^ if children were present, they should be arrested. Noted though that such hetero acts in public don't come with massive planning, done on floats under the banner of "PRIDE" within a subculture....

Oh- so if there is not a banner saying Pride- its okay when straights do it.

Gotcha.

LOL

 

[Syriusly]

By the way- just pointing out the majority of posters- which Silhouette uses as a measure of how the entire United States thinks- believes gay couples should be treated just like everyone else when it comes to adoption.

 

[Silhouette]

By the way- just pointing out the majority of posters- which Silhouette uses as a measure of how the entire United States thinks- believes gay couples should be treated just like everyone else when it comes to adoption.

Except that what will determine the outcome is LAW. "Gay marriage" comes with a contract that on its face banishes children involved from the psycological necessity of either a father or mother for life. Such is not allowed in contracts. See the Infancy Doctrine for details.

Besides, 85% of the voters on the "both mother and father poll" done here, distributed evenly across the entire political spectrum said they believe both a mother and father are important to children. Yes, 85%. Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

So both law and popular opinion are what Dumont is up against vs Lyon in the Michigan adoption lawsuit.

 

[Syriusly]

By the way- just pointing out the majority of posters- which Silhouette uses as a measure of how the entire United States thinks- believes gay couples should be treated just like everyone else when it comes to adoption.

"Gay marriage" comes with a contract that on its face banishes children involved from the psycological necessity of either a father or mother for life. Such is not allowed in contracts. See the Infancy Doctrine for details..

a) Marriage is a contract between two people- and no one else.
b) Marriage neither ensures children parents, or ensures that there will be children.
c) The Infancy Doctrine does not prevent any contracts involving children- it only says kids can get out of contracts signed on their behalf by their parents.
d) Why do you want imaginary kids to be able to get out of your imaginary marriage contract?

 

[Silhouette]

a) Marriage is a contract between two people- and no one else.
b) Marriage neither ensures children parents, or ensures that there will be children.
c) The Infancy Doctrine does not prevent any contracts involving children- it only says kids can get out of contracts signed on their behalf by their parents.
d) Why do you want imaginary kids to be able to get out of your imaginary marriage contract?

a) Nope. In fact the State it's in that metes out benefits as well as children anticipated are also implicit partners to the contract.
b) We don't create rules for the many based on few exceptions that clamor for inclusion without Constitutional protections to do so. Nor do we set rules for all based on some who underperform. So in all marriage contracts the rules are set in the overwhelming preponderance of statistical likelihood that children will arrive to the contract. Marriage has always been about the benefits it gives children in a society. Pay attention because you will see words just like this in upcoming briefs to various courts.
c) The Infancy Doctrine also has a subclause called "Necessities". You might want to take a look at that when you get a minute.
d) I want all children involved in marriage contracts to get their old benefits of both a father and mother out of it; not to be banished for life from either a mother or father using a marriage contract. When new business partners draw up a contract anticipating profits, when the profits arrive, they are subject to the rules of the contract.

 

[Syriusly]

By the way- just pointing out the majority of posters- which Silhouette uses as a measure of how the entire United States thinks- believes gay couples should be treated just like everyone else when it comes to adoption.

Except that what will determine the outcome is LAW. "Gay marriage" comes with a contract that on its face banishes children involved from the psycological necessity of either a father or mother for life. Such is not allowed in contracts. See the Infancy Doctrine for details.

Besides, 85% of the voters on the "both mother and father poll" done here, distributed evenly across the entire political spectrum said they believe both a mother and father are important to children. Yes, 85%. Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

So both law and popular opinion are what Dumont is up against vs Lyon in the Michigan adoption lawsuit.

56% of voters in your own pole says that kids who need families need families- whether or not the parents are straight or gay.

 

[Silhouette]

56% of voters in your own pole says that kids who need families need families- whether or not the parents are straight or gay.

Which is a flat-out lie. You realize people can click the link and read the poll?

 

[Syriusly]

a) Marriage is a contract between two people- and no one else.
b) Marriage neither ensures children parents, or ensures that there will be children.
c) The Infancy Doctrine does not prevent any contracts involving children- it only says kids can get out of contracts signed on their behalf by their parents.
d) Why do you want imaginary kids to be able to get out of your imaginary marriage contract?

a) Nope. In fact the State it's in that metes out benefits as well as children anticipated are also implicit partners to the contract..

Nope- not only are children implicit partners in marriage- some states even forbid the marriage partners from even having children. Nor are children implicit partners when two 80 year olds marry. This is simply a fiction you have created to justify your discrimination against gays.

 

[Syriusly]

56% of voters in your own pole says that kids who need families need families- whether or not the parents are straight or gay.

Which is a flat-out lie. You realize people can click the link and read the poll?

56.3% say that gays and lesbians should not be discriminated against when it comes to adoption- here you go:

After reading the OP, do you believe that unwanted kids should be adopted out to gays or lesbians?

1. *
   Yes
   9 vote(s)
   56.3%
2. No
   6 vote(s)
   37.5%
3. Still not sure
   1 vote(s)
   6.3%

 

[Syriusly]

a) Marriage is a contract between two people- and no one else.
b) Marriage neither ensures children parents, or ensures that there will be children.
c) The Infancy Doctrine does not prevent any contracts involving children- it only says kids can get out of contracts signed on their behalf by their parents.
d) Why do you want imaginary kids to be able to get out of your imaginary marriage contract?

b) We don't create rules for the many based on few exceptions

Sure we do. States create marriage rules for First Cousins (the few exceptions). States happily allow 80 year olds to marry- fully knowing that they will never produce children. One state tried to ban parents who owed child support from marrying(the few exceptions) but the Supreme Court told them no.

Again- there is no obligation to have children in marriage- none at all.

 

[Syriusly]

a) Marriage is a contract between two people- and no one else.
b) Marriage neither ensures children parents, or ensures that there will be children.
c) The Infancy Doctrine does not prevent any contracts involving children- it only says kids can get out of contracts signed on their behalf by their parents.
d) Why do you want imaginary kids to be able to get out of your imaginary marriage contract?

c) The Infancy Doctrine also has a subclause called "Necessities". You might want to take a look at that when you get a minute.

Not a subclause- Necessaries- Necessities- are an exception to the Infancy Clause- so a minor is liable in a contract for necessaries- are you arguing that your imaginary minors would have to pay their parents for being part of your imaginary marriage contract?

Once again- there is nothing in the Infancy Doctrine which prevents parents of real children- from signing contracts on their behalf- let alone your imaginary potential future children.

 

[Syriusly]

[
d) I want all children involved in marriage contracts to get their old benefits of both a father and mother out of it; not to be banished for life from either a mother or father using a marriage contract..

What does that have to do with kids who need adoption?

You know- the kids that their own parents abandoned- and have left to the state- who are looking for parents- or even a parent- to be a family with?

Why do you want to prevent kids from having parents?

 

[Silhouette]

So food, clothing, shelter are necessities, but not a father or a mother...or rather...you're contending that children can be banished from a father or mother for life because "they're not a necessity" to the child. That's going to be a tough argument to sell to the American public. And, the Justices DO consider public opinion at the highest level when they decide.

You really believe the USSC will judicially-legislate, using 9 unelected lawyers, a MASSIVE social precedent such as "fathers" (or mothers) are no longer uniquely important to a child?

 

[Syriusly]

So food, clothing, shelter are necessities, but not a father or a mother...or rather...you're contending that children can be banished from a father or mother for life because "they're not a necessity" to the child. .

If you want to argue that parents can charge a child for the 'necessities' for raising a child- well go for it.

Because as I have shown over and over- the Infancy Doctrine doesn't say anything about marriage- or frankly anything you claim.

The Infancy Doctrine says a child can void a contract his parents signed him up for.

The exemption for necessities says that the child is still responsible for paying for what the child needed- and used in the contract.

Nothing in the Infancy Doctrine prevents any contract from being signed.

You just lie.

You just lie.

 

[Silhouette]

What does that have to do with kids who need adoption?.....Why do you want to prevent kids from having parents?

So you'd be ok with polygamists adopting these same kids...& marrying too? No...wait. Seems I remember you saying once that you think their behaviors & lifestyles aren't suitable for children.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ if children were present, they should be arrested. Noted though that such hetero acts in public don't come with massive planning, done on floats under the banner of "PRIDE" within a subculture....

Oh- so if there is not a banner saying Pride- its okay when straights do it.

LOL

Either one should be arrested. However it does make a difference when you design a parade specifically to display sexual behaviors to the general public on floats where children are present and anticipated under the banner of "Pride" about this being the overt core of your subculture's MO.

Adults getting out of control at a drunken street party, arrest the individuals involved. Adults planning a sexual-exposure parade where children are anticipated, under the banner of "Pride"? Arrest the parade planners as well as the individuals doing said acts in front of kids. Again Syriusly, I note the utter vacuum of protest you have for the typical gay pride parade. You willing to come out yet and denounce them?

 

[Syriusly]

^^ if children were present, they should be arrested. Noted though that such hetero acts in public don't come with massive planning, done on floats under the banner of "PRIDE" within a subculture....

Oh- so if there is not a banner saying Pride- its okay when straights do it.

LOL

Either one should be arrested. However it does make a difference when you design a parade specifically to display sexual behaviors to the general public on floats where children are present and anticipated under the banner of "Pride" about this being the overt core of your subculture's MO.

It makes a difference to you because of the way you view gays and straights differently- which is why you object to the banner of Pride.

The parade is not designed to display sexual behaviors- no matter how much you lie about it.

The parade is a celebration of people who are gay- and the people who love them.

Which is of course why you feel so threatened by the Pride Parades.

 

[Syriusly]

^^ if children were present, they should be arrested. Noted though that such hetero acts in public don't come with massive planning, done on floats under the banner of "PRIDE" within a subculture....

Oh- so if there is not a banner saying Pride- its okay when straights do it.

LOL

Again Syriusly, I note the utter vacuum of protest you have for the typical gay pride parade. You willing to come out yet and denounce them?

LOL- you have no idea what a 'typical gay pride parade' is- just because you search for parade porn on the internet does not mean you know what a typical Pride parade is.

Here is what I will denounce- I am against public sex- which I have encountered a few times in San Francisco- every time a drunken straight couple.

I am not against gay people coming together to celebrate their community. I am not against naked people marching in a parade or running in the Bay to Breakers. IF anyone in the parade is having public sex- then I denounce them- and would happily see them arrested. I have never seen that.

But scantily clad men gyrating in public? Grinding against each other? I have no more problem with that then I do with the scantly clad women who gyrate in public during Carnival.

And if parents don't think that their children should see scantily clad women or men- then they shouldn't bring them to the Pride Parade or the Carnival Parade- the Chinese New Year parade would be more appropriate.

 

[Syriusly]

What does that have to do with kids who need adoption?.....Why do you want to prevent kids from having parents?

So you'd be ok with polygamists adopting these same kids...& marrying too? No...wait. Seems I remember you saying once that you think their behaviors & lifestyles aren't suitable for children.

You seem to remember all sorts of things the voices in your head say.

Why do you want to prevent kids from having parents?