Are States Legally Obligated to Defy Obergefell (2015)? Silhouette vs the 50 States.

[ogibillm]

Silhouette when are you going to champion arresting all single parents for child abuse?

 

[Syriusly]

Silhouette when are you going to champion arresting all single parents for child abuse?

I want to see how Silhouette will argue that incestuous marriage should be legal- because the most important thing is that a child have a mother and father.....

 

[Silhouette]

Silhouette when are you going to champion arresting all single parents for child abuse?

Never. Because single parents may still marry the opposite gender. So they aren't trying to clamp down on kids for life and deprive them of a necessity via a contractual term..

Gays getting "married' are seeking to do that without showing any concern at all for what is best for the children. It's when they cross the threshold of binding the children legally to a deprivation that umbrage begins.

And, for that matter, I believe that lesbians and gay men currently with children in whatever situation should be legally required to prove up that those children have a regular reliable mentor of the opposite gender as they grow up....access to one should they elect. I think the missing parents should be involved in their lives regularly, like divorce.

A state must and cannot allow their graces to be bestowed up on a contractual term that harms children by depriving them of a necessity. An adult child raised in a gay "married" home could technically grow up to file a lawsuit against the state who 'married" the gays who raised him and claim he was deprived of a necessity via contract with that state's blessing. Maybe some of the kids in the link in my signature will do just that?

 

[ogibillm]

Silhouette when are you going to champion arresting all single parents for child abuse?

Never. Because single parents may still marry the opposite gender.

i see. so you're okay with child abuse so long as there is the possibility that someday, maybe, it might stop

 

[mdk]

Score update:

50 States: 2

Silhouette: 0

Better luck tomorrow!

 

[Silhouette]

i see. so you're okay with child abuse so long as there is the possibility that someday, maybe, it might stop

It isn't child abuse if the child still has hope. That's the key difference. In "gay marriage" it is synonymous with "the eradication of hope that the children will ever have the missing parent". The abuse is the mental prison of loss of hope. Meditate on that. A contract cannot place a child in a mental prison. Also, brush up on the Infant Doctrine and necessities in contracts and meditate on that too..

A state cannot be part of a contract that formally places any child in a mental prison for life.

 

[ogibillm]

i see. so you're okay with child abuse so long as there is the possibility that someday, maybe, it might stop

It isn't child abuse if the child still has hope.

ah. i see. so if you beat a child but they have hope that you'll stop it's not abuse.

 

[Silhouette]

ah. i see. so if you beat a child but they have hope that you'll stop it's not abuse.

Non sequitur. "Gay marriage" equivalent would be if you bound a child to a contract that said "you will be beaten every day for the rest of your life". A child being beaten without a contractual bind does have hope still that it will stop. Especially if society steps in to get the parent counseling. With gay marriage it's "you will be beaten every day for the rest of your life and society is barred from intervening."

 

[ogibillm]

ah. i see. so if you beat a child but they have hope that you'll stop it's not abuse.

Non sequitur. "Gay marriage" equivalent would be if you bound a child to a contract that said "you will be beaten every day for the rest of your life".

what sort of damage do you think an endless parade of suitors does to a child?

how long do you think the prison sentence should be for parents that divorce?

 

[Silhouette]

what sort of damage do you think an endless parade of suitors does to a child?

how long do you think the prison sentence should be for parents that divorce?

Again, non sequitur. There is no contractual cement to a single parent. All manner of different things happen while hope remains alive. The hope is eradicated upon the wet signature on a gay marriage contract/license.

 

[ogibillm]

what sort of damage do you think an endless parade of suitors does to a child?

how long do you think the prison sentence should be for parents that divorce?

Again, non sequitur. There is no contractual cement to a single parent. All manner of different things happen while hope remains alive. The hope is eradicated upon the wet signature on a gay marriage contract/license.

so single parents can deny their child a two parent home forever parading sexual partner after sexual partner through the home and it's not abuse because 'hope', but a loving, stable, two parent homosexual home is abuse because 'contract?'

and you haven't answered the question about parents that divorce. how long should we lock them up for abusing their child(ren)

 

[mdk]

i see. so you're okay with child abuse so long as there is the possibility that someday, maybe, it might stop

It isn't child abuse if the child still has hope. That's the key difference. In "gay marriage" it is synonymous with "the eradication of hope that the children will ever have the missing parent". The abuse is the mental prison of loss of hope. Meditate on that. A contract cannot place a child in a mental prison. Also, brush up on the Infant Doctrine and necessities in contracts and meditate on that too..

A state cannot be part of a contract that formally places any child in a mental prison for life.

Brush up on reality b/c only in your delusional mind is gays marrying and rasing children is considered child abuse. Your mental illness doesn't compel states to do anything.

 

[Silhouette]

Non sequitur. "Gay marriage" equivalent would be if you bound a child to a contract that said "you will be beaten every day for the rest of your life". A child being beaten without a contractual bind does have hope still that it will stop. Especially if society steps in to get the parent counseling. With gay marriage it's "you will be beaten every day for the rest of your life and society is barred from intervening."

what sort of damage do you think an endless parade of suitors does to a child?

how long do you think the prison sentence should be for parents that divorce?

Again, non sequitur. There is no contractual cement to a single parent. All manner of different things happen while hope remains alive. The hope is eradicated upon the wet signature on a gay marriage contract/license.

so single parents can deny their child a two parent home forever parading sexual partner after sexual partner through the home and it's not abuse because 'hope', but a loving, stable, two parent homosexual home is abuse because 'contract?'

and you haven't answered the question about parents that divorce. how long should we lock them up for abusing their child(ren)

The hypothetical single or divorced parents you mention are just that: hypothetical. Any number of situations that can have remedy arise. The gay marriage contract IS THE ERADICATION OF REMEDY....FOR LIFE. I know you can see the intrinsic harm. Please stop being intellectually dishonest.

We are talking about states signing off on CONTRACTS with FIXED CONDITIONS that DON'T CHANGE FOR LIFE. vs non-contractual situations that everyone hopes to assist to change.

 

[mdk]

what sort of damage do you think an endless parade of suitors does to a child?

how long do you think the prison sentence should be for parents that divorce?

Again, non sequitur. There is no contractual cement to a single parent. All manner of different things happen while hope remains alive. The hope is eradicated upon the wet signature on a gay marriage contract/license.

Hope doesn't replace a parent. Funny how all your objections to children being without a mother and father fall by the wayside when it comes to straight people. You have all sorts of convenient exemptions for them.

 

[Skylar]

Non sequitur. "Gay marriage" equivalent would be if you bound a child to a contract that said "you will be beaten every day for the rest of your life".

Except that child isn't any party to the marriage of their parents.

I don't think 'equivalent' means what you think it means.

A child being beaten without a contractual bind does have hope still that it will stop. Especially if society steps in to get the parent counseling. With gay marriage it's "you will be beaten every day for the rest of your life and society is barred from intervening."

So two loving parents raising their own children is equivalent to 'beating them'?

You're kinda raising the false equivalency fallacy to an art form.

Again, non sequitur. There is no contractual cement to a single parent.

You've said its being raised without a mother or father that is the abuse. Making any 'contract' irrelevant. And of course, there is no contract. Making it irrelevant twice! And the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. Making it irrelevant thrice!

I can do this all day. Let me demonstrate.

To follow your spectacular false equivalence fallacy, beating your child isn't less abuse because there is hope that someday you might not beat your child. You're once again spouting wildly inconsistent nonsense flagrantly violating even the terms your imaginary internal logic.

And can we take it from your seemingly random use of the word 'non-sequitur' that its your new buzz word of the week?

 

[Syriusly]

Silhouette when are you going to champion arresting all single parents for child abuse?

Never. Because single parents may still marry the opposite gender. So they aren't trying to clamp down on kids for life and deprive them of a necessity via a contractual term

LOL- but you claim that children are being abused if they don't have a mother or a father in their lives.

As usual- your claims only apply to homosexual parents.

IF having a father is an actual 'necessity' for a child- it is as much a necessity when the child is being raised by one mother- or two mothers.

As usual- you use a double standard that you don't even apply to yourself.

 

[Syriusly]

i see. so you're okay with child abuse so long as there is the possibility that someday, maybe, it might stop

It isn't child abuse if the child still has hope. That's the key difference..

Wow- just wow- "It isn't child abuse if the child still has hope"

• Parent's lock child in room and don't feed child enough- according to Silhouette- not child abuse because the child still 'has hope' he will be fed tomorrow
• Mom beats child every day with a belt- according to Silhouette- not child abuse because the chidl still has hope he will not be beaten tomorrow.
• Dad rapes child every day- according to Silhouette- not child abuse- because child still has hope he will not be raped tomorrow.
• Finally- and oddly- according to Silhouette- those two women who so savagely beat their boy- causing him to have strokes? Not abuse- because that boy still has 'hope' that he won't be beaten tomorrow....

 

[Syriusly]

The hypothetical single or divorced parents you mention are just that: hypothetical..

Not hypothetical- there are millions of single parents raising children.

Your standards vary by whether or not the parents are gay

Because you are a bigot.