Idea For New Constitutional Amendment: "The Child Consideration Amendment"

[Silhouette]

The motivation for putting children's needs above adult's wants is irrelevent to the topic. They should either be legally dominant or not. Are you afraid of that vote going before Congress? It sure sounds to me like you are.

Oh please put this before Congress- I am sure that they will be as baffled as anyone else trying to figure out what the hell your mess of words is supposed to mean.

If you reword it to more clearly state your actual objective: "A constitutional Amendment to ban gay people from raising children' they at least might understand what your objective is.

Why are you equating protecting children with banning gay people from raising children? Oh, that would be because you know that the Prince's Trust survey found that boys raised without a regular male role model or girls raised without a female role model experience significantly higher rates of depression, maladjustment, indigency, a feeling of not belonging and suicide...The innate dysfunction of your new social experiment is not "my bad". It's yours. Own it. Children are the last class who cannot vote and had absolutely zero voice in the gay marriage debate. A dozen of them raised under the burden described in the Prince's Trust (in gay fatherless/motherless homes) wrote amicus briefs saying that gay parents were not good substitutes for real ones to the SCOTUS before this case and not a mention was made of those briefs. It's time their voices were no longer purposefully squelched so that adults can get their jollies at their expense. Long past due time.

The Prince's Trusty Study doesn't mention homosexuals- or fathers or mothers.

Just you making crap up again.

It says boys raised without regular male role model or girls raised without regular female role model. Which one of the two men in a gay home is a mother? Which one of the two women in a lesbian home is a father?

 

[Syriusly]

The motivation for putting children's needs above adult's wants is irrelevent to the topic. They should either be legally dominant or not. Are you afraid of that vote going before Congress? It sure sounds to me like you are.

Oh please put this before Congress- I am sure that they will be as baffled as anyone else trying to figure out what the hell your mess of words is supposed to mean.

If you reword it to more clearly state your actual objective: "A constitutional Amendment to ban gay people from raising children' they at least might understand what your objective is.

Why are you equating protecting children with banning gay people from raising children? Oh, that would be because you know that the Prince's Trust survey found that boys raised without a regular male role model or girls raised without a female role model experience significantly higher rates of depression, maladjustment, indigency, a feeling of not belonging and suicide...The innate dysfunction of your new social experiment is not "my bad". It's yours. Own it. Children are the last class who cannot vote and had absolutely zero voice in the gay marriage debate. A dozen of them raised under the burden described in the Prince's Trust (in gay fatherless/motherless homes) wrote amicus briefs saying that gay parents were not good substitutes for real ones to the SCOTUS before this case and not a mention was made of those briefs. It's time their voices were no longer purposefully squelched so that adults can get their jollies at their expense. Long past due time.

The Prince's Trusty Study doesn't mention homosexuals- or fathers or mothers.

Just you making crap up again.

It says boys raised without regular male role model or girls raised without regular female role model. Which one of the two men in a gay home is a mother? Which one of the two women in a lesbian home is a father?

Which foot do you kick puppies with Silhouette?

The Prince's Study does not mention homosexuals, or mother, or fathers- it mentions gender role models- which it does not define.

Among the many role models in a child's life include grandparents, uncles and aunts, teachers, ministers, coaches, Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America.

You know- all of the role models jumping in to help that single mom or dad raise a kid.

 

[Silhouette]

Which foot do you kick puppies with Silhouette?

The Prince's Study does not mention homosexuals, or mother, or fathers- it mentions gender role models- which it does not define.

Among the many role models in a child's life include grandparents, uncles and aunts, teachers, ministers, coaches, Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America..

So if someone disagrees with the gay agenda, it's the same exactly as "kicking puppies"...you poor thing. Don't join the military because you might be confronted with boot camp....lol.. Why is it you are here at a political forum whose purpose is to hash out controversial topics?

Gender role models were had by the participants in the Prince's Trust survey...unless they lived in isolation, they had fairly regular contact with members of their own gender in adult form. We can assume they stumbled upon them. So the determining factor of the study was a regular and consistent/constant presence of a role model of their gender in their lives. That would be a mother or father, grandmother/grandfather not some irregular aunt or janitor or soccer coach. It was the lack of who they spent their daily lives with from infancy through young adulthood.

I suppose ChrisL would find this Amendment a good idea inasumuch as it would put an instant halt to the show "I Am Jazz" (aka "I Am Child Abuse") or the practice of the state of Oregon funding sex change operations for minors. Do you agree with ChrisL on that point at least?

 

[Syriusly]

Which foot do you kick puppies with Silhouette?

The Prince's Study does not mention homosexuals, or mother, or fathers- it mentions gender role models- which it does not define.

Among the many role models in a child's life include grandparents, uncles and aunts, teachers, ministers, coaches, Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America..

So if someone disagrees with the gay agenda, it's the same exactly as "kicking puppies".

No- when someone asks me a leading question- like you did- it is exactly the same as asking you what foot you kick puppies with.

So what foot do you kick puppies with?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No, we should wait for the Supreme Court to make it law.

So the Supreme Court making your list law? Would that outlaw, say....divorce?

I was being sarcastic. You missed it.

Oh, I caught it. I just don't care. Would your law include the criminalization of divorce? Or at the very least, the prohibition?

Where children are present, divorce should be extremely difficult.

You're insane.

Note that plenty of women will then simply use those magic words: "He hit me!" Hell, my cousin's wife drove him to suicide.

She better file a police report and have the incident investigated

 

[Syriusly]

Which foot do you kick puppies with Silhouette?

The Prince's Study does not mention homosexuals, or mother, or fathers- it mentions gender role models- which it does not define.

Among the many role models in a child's life include grandparents, uncles and aunts, teachers, ministers, coaches, Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America..

So the determining factor of the study was a regular and consistent/constant presence of a role model of their gender in their lives. That would be a mother or father, grandmother/grandfather not some irregular aunt or janitor or soccer coach.

That is what you are saying.

The Prince's Trust says no such thing.

Remember- the Prince's Trust Study is about Youth wellbeing- and mentions role models- both parental- and non-parental.

We are proud to support The Prince’s Trust
Macquarie Youth Index which surveys the young
people of the nation to assess their wellbeing and
state of mind.

ROLE MODELS AND GANGS
According to the respondents of the
survey, a lack of positive role models is
one key issue that is driving young people
to join gangs.
Key
findings:
>
Fifty-nine per cent of young people agree
that a lack of positive role models drives
young people to join gangs
>
More than half of young people do not
have a parent that they consider a role
model (58 per cent), while around one in
five (18 per cent) admit that they have no
role model at all
>
30 per cent of young people with no role
model admit to feeling worthless. This
compares to 17 per cent of all young
people

 

[Silhouette]

So the Supreme Court making your list law? Would that outlaw, say....divorce?

No. Divorce if in the child's best interest (to escape the pain of parents' daily escalating fighting) would fit the gold standard just fine. It wouldn't affect divorce at all.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It isn't an "anti-gay" Amendment, though the usual crowd will scream foul that it is.

And if democrats reject the proposal on the grounds that "it would affect gay marriage"...then so be it. Advertise loud and clear that they preferred the "rights" to a deviant lifestyle over the wellbeing of children. They would also be "coming out" either anti-mother or anti-father.

So, it is anti-gay. Well, it's a Sil thread; so, of course it is.

So you feel that a Pro-child amendment is anti-gay?

Huh... That means that you believe that law which serves the interests of children undermines the interests of degenerates.

LOL!

There's a clue in there somewhere.

 

[Skylar]

So the Supreme Court making your list law? Would that outlaw, say....divorce?

No. Divorce if in the child's best interest (to escape the pain of parents' daily escalating fighting) would fit the gold standard just fine. It wouldn't affect divorce at all.

Says who? Remember, any ruling a judge might make on divorce involves the well being of children. And thus would be beyond the judge's ability to rule.

It would have to be put up for a vote.

So would it be a vote for every aspect of the divorce? One vote for the child support, one vote for visitation, one vote for custody, one vote for property distribution?

As all of these could dramatically impact the wellbeing of a child.

 

[Silhouette]

Skylar, the gold standard says if there's a question where a determination must be made between an adult's WHIMS and a child's NEEDS, the child always prevails legally. Its like mandatory sentencing. Think of it that way. The judge's hands become tied.

 

[Silhouette]

So you feel that a Pro-child amendment is anti-gay?...Huh... That means that you believe that law which serves the interests of children undermines the interests of degenerates....LOL! .....There's a clue in there somewhere.

Yep. And that is to a gay person, if there is a choice between them fantasizing their depravity constitutes "parenthood" that's "acceptable as a substitute for mother/father" and a child's wellbeing, they will choose their sexual depravity over a child's wellbeing every time. Then, they wonder at the same moment why adoption agencies are hesistant to adopt orphans to them.

Gee, with that automatic default, what could go wrong? Don't worry keys, Syriusly and pals will never be able to put the two concepts together because if they did, it would cause their mental wounds to burst and their minds would collapse.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So you feel that a Pro-child amendment is anti-gay?...Huh... That means that you believe that law which serves the interests of children undermines the interests of degenerates....LOL! .....There's a clue in there somewhere.

Yep. And that is to a gay person, if there is a choice between them fantasizing their depravity constitutes "parenthood" that's "acceptable as a substitute for mother/father" and a child's wellbeing, they will choose their sexual depravity over a child's wellbeing every time. Then, they wonder at the same moment why adoption agencies are hesistant to adopt orphans to them.

Gee, with that automatic default, what could go wrong? Don't worry keys, Syriusly and pals will never be able to put the two concepts together because if they did, it would cause their mental wounds to burst and their minds would collapse.

Just well said!

 

[J.E.D]

It isn't an "anti-gay" Amendment, though the usual crowd will scream foul that it is.

And if democrats reject the proposal on the grounds that "it would affect gay marriage"...then so be it. Advertise loud and clear that they preferred the "rights" to a deviant lifestyle over the wellbeing of children. They would also be "coming out" either anti-mother or anti-father.

So, it is anti-gay. Well, it's a Sil thread; so, of course it is.

So you feel that a Pro-child amendment is anti-gay?

Huh... That means that you believe that law which serves the interests of children undermines the interests of degenerates.

LOL!

There's a clue in there somewhere.

I feel that this proposed "pro-child" amendment is anti-gay. Yes. But so does the op. Don't take my word for it. Take her's:

Advertise loud and clear that they preferred the "rights" to a deviant lifestyle over the wellbeing of children.

Are you going to deny that the op's intentions are anti-gay?

 

[Syriusly]

Skylar, the gold standard says if there's a question where a determination must be made between an adult's WHIMS and a child's NEEDS, the child always prevails legally. Its like mandatory sentencing. Think of it that way. The judge's hands become tied.

AND- divorce would of course be part of that standard. If a Judge decides that divorce is against the child's best interest, then that divorce would have to go to the voters to decide.....

 

[Syriusly]

So you feel that a Pro-child amendment is anti-gay?...Huh... That means that you believe that law which serves the interests of children undermines the interests of degenerates....LOL! .....There's a clue in there somewhere.

Yep. And that is to a gay person, if there is a choice between them fantasizing their depravity constitutes "parenthood"

And once again Silhouette demonstrating that this thread is nothing more than a continuation of her ongoing war against homosexuals.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Skylar, the gold standard says if there's a question where a determination must be made between an adult's WHIMS and a child's NEEDS, the child always prevails legally. Its like mandatory sentencing. Think of it that way. The judge's hands become tied.

AND- divorce would of course be part of that standard. If a Judge decides that divorce is against the child's best interest, then that divorce would have to go to the voters to decide.....

And don't forget, from the OP: "Any court decision on appeal that affects the potential wellbeing of children must be put back to voters of the separate states... There can be no ruling found that favors adult wants over a child's needs".

If you are not allowed to divorce - it can be appealed and therefore require a state ballot be cast be all voters.

If you are allowed to divorce but appeal the custody determination - it can be appealed and therefore require a state ballot be cast be all voters.

If you win a divorce but don't like the amount of child support - it can be appealed and therefore require a state ballot be cast be all voters.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

The OP isn't as important as the thrust of the issue: Children's needs vs adult's wants & whims. The voteless must always prevail against the priveleged voter in that case. Very simple.

 

[Syriusly]

The OP isn't as important as the thrust of the issue: Children's needs vs adult's wants & whims. The voteless must always prevail against the priveleged voter in that case. Very simple.

Conficted and imprisoned felons can't vote.

So why do you think that convicts rights take precedent over the rights of non-convicts?

 

[Silhouette]

The OP isn't as important as the thrust of the issue: Children's needs vs adult's wants & whims. The voteless must always prevail against the priveleged voter in that case. Very simple.

Conficted and imprisoned felons can't vote.

So why do you think that convicts rights take precedent over the rights of non-convicts?

They did something to not be able to vote. Children simply cannot, ever. No matter how good of citizens they are. So, they win. Next strawman?

 

[mdk]

None of this will be necessary when Congress begins impeachment proceedings of Kagan & Ginsberg. It should happen any day.