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

[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?

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?

Here is what you claimed:

The voteless must always prevail against the priveleged voter in that case. Very simple

So- you are admitting it is not the condition of being 'voteless' at all.

 

[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.

Convicted 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?

Here is what you claimed:

The voteless must always prevail against the priveleged voter in that case. Very simple

So- you are admitting it is not the condition of being 'voteless' at all.

I've come to recognize that your specialty as a regular online blogger for all things LGBT is to cut out of the herd isolated tangents and chase them down. It's like a finesse for diet-strawmen. Not fully fledged strawmen, but equally effective in shutting down a conversation; which is your ultimate goal. After all, conversations about these topics in depth are indefensible from your ilk. And every fiber of you knows this. So your survival instincts have funneled all your energy and talents into the art of "diet-strawmen"...anything but continuing the discussion. People mired in deep stage denial often become very adept at deflection from introspection. For them it isn't merely a hassle, it is life-threatening. Because to confront reality on its terms would shatter what's left of their fragile mind just barely holding on. This truly is a battle for your sanity. I understand that.

Nevertheless...your particular state of sanity cannot become normal and cannot become society's insanity collectively because people can be coered to feel sorry for you and then tend to give you everything you demand.

So, I will say that children being voteless IS BUT ONE concern OF MANY that would be addressed by the new Constitutional Amendment I'm proposing here.

 

[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.

Convicted 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?

Here is what you claimed:

The voteless must always prevail against the priveleged voter in that case. Very simple

So- you are admitting it is not the condition of being 'voteless' at all.

Nevertheless...your particular state of sanity cannot become normal and cannot become society's insanity collectively because people can be coered to feel sorry for you and then tend to give you everything you demand..

LOL- you are more deranged than usual.

Is any of that supposed to make any sense- to anyone?

We have established now that 'being voteless' is not an actual condition you are concerned about.

Now we can just move onto discussing why you want to encourage harm to children by preventing their parents from marrying.

 

[Silhouette]

You've established nothing but that your ilk seems to be fiercely resistant in unison to an Amendment to the Constitution that puts children's needs over adults wants and whims. Could the reason be that you know a child needs both a mother and father for the best shot at life and your cult of deviant sex acts can never provide that for them?

Boiling that supposition down, it really means that you value deviant sex acts more than what children need. And now you see why adoption agencies do not want to adopt to gays. In a funny way, you folks have already explained that to yourselves here...if you would but only read your own words and what they ACTUALLY are saying at the end of the day..

 

[Syriusly]

Y
Boiling that supposition down, it really means that you value deviant sex acts more than what children need. ..

What sex acts are those exactly? I am very curious since you seem to be obsessed with 'deviant sex acts' rather than what children actually need.

Children deserve parents- hopefully two parents. Hopefully good parents. Hopefully parents that can afford to feed them and keep a roof over their heads, and keep them in school. Hopefully parents who are good examples. Hopefully parents in good enough health so the kids have parents for a long time.

You want to prevent homosexuals who are parents- from marrying.

In order to deprive their children of having married parents.

 

[Silhouette]

Children deserve parents which are always in the plural a mother and father if the number is 2. A gay man can NEVER replace the nuances of a mother. A lesbian can NEVER replace the nuances of a father. Both of which are vital to a child's normal development.

 

[Syriusly]

Children deserve parents which are always in the plural a mother and father if the number is 2. A gay man can NEVER replace the nuances of a mother. A lesbian can NEVER replace the nuances of a father. Both of which are vital to a child's normal development.

I notice you don't even care whether the parents are good parents. Or whether or not they can keep them feed and housed.

Children deserve parents- hopefully two parents. Hopefully good parents. Hopefully parents that can afford to feed them and keep a roof over their heads, and keep them in school. Hopefully parents who are good examples. Hopefully parents in good enough health so the kids have parents for a long time.

A family with a single mom- or two mom's do not replace the nuances of having a father figure- but they get by- and often ask men to step in to help- grandfather's, Uncles, Cousins- same issue that single moms- and two mom households have to figure out.


I am revising my previous claims- previously I said your objective was to prevent kids from having married gay parents.

Now I realize I should be saying- your objective is to prevent children from having parents who are gay.

You want to deny them the ability to become parents- you want to take their kids away from them- and probably want lesbians to be sterilized just to be sure that they cannot have children.

This 'amendment' is just your first step to take children away from gay parents.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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

Are you serious? No proof is needed to destroy a man's life. (My cousin's wife completely destroyed his life in the space of less than 6 hours.)

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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

Are you serious? No proof is needed to destroy a man's life. (My cousin's wife completely destroyed his life in the space of less than 6 hours.)

That's the point of a police report, so an impartial investigation can ensue, so that an accusation alone is NOT enough to destroy a man's life.

 

[Silhouette]

Children deserve parents which are always in the plural a mother and father if the number is 2. A gay man can NEVER replace the nuances of a mother. A lesbian can NEVER replace the nuances of a father. Both of which are vital to a child's normal development.

I notice you don't even care whether the parents are good parents. Or whether or not they can keep them feed and housed.

Children deserve parents- hopefully two parents. Hopefully good parents. Hopefully parents that can afford to feed them and keep a roof over their heads, and keep them in school..

Michael Jackson had plenty of money. Should little boys have been left with him "as a good parent"? Two good parents are a man and a woman. That's where you start. The evaluation of their finances and whether or not they are abusive are on equal footing with gays after that. But the dominating consideration first and foremost is if they fit the physical role and vital need to provide that role modeling for the kids in the home: fathers for boys, mothers for girls.

Money/neglect etc. know no sexual orientation...except that there does seem to be an elevated rate per capita (a preponderance) of both child sexual abuse and domestic violence in the homosexual grouping.

 

[Jarlaxle]

That's the point of a police report, so an impartial investigation can ensue, so that an accusation alone is NOT enough to destroy a man's life.

But it IS, and we both know it. In the space of SIX HOURS, a single, unfounded accusation by a woman looking for leverage in a divorce rendered my cousin instantly unemployed, permanently unemployable, homeless, and penniless.

 

[Silhouette]

Well I see this thread has devolved into "the rigors of divorce" vs if children should have a protective constitutional amendment since they can't vote.

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?

Here is what you claimed:

The voteless must always prevail against the priveleged voter in that case. Very simple

So- you are admitting it is not the condition of being 'voteless' at all.

It is one among many things that would be remedied in an Amendment tailored to protect children's needs from adult's wants and whims.

 

[mdk]

Yeah, this amendment is never going to happen. It is Sil's latest lame attempt to punish gay people and their children. Sil loves to quote USMB polls as gospel but is oddly silent about this one. Why is that? lol

 

[Syriusly]

Well I see this thread has devolved into "the rigors of divorce" vs if children should have a protective constitutional amendment since they can't vote.

It is one among many things that would be remedied in an Amendment tailored to protect children's needs from adult's wants and whims.

Divorce would be the major issue in protecting children's needs from adult's wants and whims.

I mean if protecting children was even a concern of yours.

 

[Idadunno]

The motherless/fatherless marriage question may very likely be returned to the People of the sovereign states to decide upon, on behalf of children that we all are guardians of collectively. You can't remove society's voice on something that affects the wellbeing of children. That can't be done. In fact, I'd have that written into the US Constitution as a new Amendment: "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".

ie, in any question where an adult's wants can be predicted to deprive, set ill at ease, harm, torment, harass, disparage, suppress or any other tort against a child's wellbeing, that case must be decided within the boundaries of a state by a referendum or a mandate to all judges to weigh heavily upon the child's needs before the adult's wants. This application of law would be the gold standard.

It isn't an "anti-gay" Amendment, though the usual crowd will scream foul that it is. It is a pro-child amendment which is long long long overdue. Children cannot vote and as such their considerations and rights are more downtrodden than any other class of people in the US.

And if put to a vote in Congress today, or next year.. I would dare any democrat to come out against a pro-child Amendment. The protections aren't limited just to marriage and how it affects their formative years. It also would protect them from neglect, abuse and exploitation and save them from any slick lawyer arguing on behalf of adults at their expense. The Amendment could actually have wording that "every child is best served by having a mother and a father present in their life on a regular basis", while acknowledging that doesn't always happen.. the striving would be towards that goal in their best interest.

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. Not good on any front really if you think about it.. Name each and every democratic Congressperson who so rejected the bill. Any rejection of the bill will make them look machiavellian and into child abuse....and it would be a cake-walk to say it just like that.

Congresspeople?

You should live in Alabama. They're always looking for new catches to ban same sex marriage.

 

[Idadunno]

Cool. Let's also throw people in jail that spank their kids.

And take away their phones, wifi, make then ride the bus, etc.

 

[Silhouette]

You should live in Alabama. They're always looking for new catches to ban same sex marriage.

Do you think that, all other things like propensity to neglect or abuse or income/poverty being equal between homosexuals and heteros, that a girl child fares better in a home with a mother? Or a boy child fares better in a home with a father? Specifically why or why not?

You should live in Nazi Germany in the late 1930s & early 40s. They were always looking for new ways to experiment with children...

 

[Idadunno]

You should live in Alabama. They're always looking for new catches to ban same sex marriage.

Do you think that, all other things like propensity to neglect or abuse or income/poverty being equal between homosexuals and heteros, that a girl child fares better in a home with a mother? Or a boy child fares better in a home with a father? Specifically why or why not?

You should live in Nazi Germany in the late 1930s & early 40s. They were always looking for new ways to experiment with children...

There you go! Spoken like a true Alabamian redneck! Huzzah to you baby... keep rolling!

 

[Silhouette]

You should live in Alabama. They're always looking for new catches to ban same sex marriage.

Do you think that, all other things like propensity to neglect or abuse or income/poverty being equal between homosexuals and heteros, that a girl child fares better in a home with a mother? Or a boy child fares better in a home with a father? Specifically why or why not?

You should live in Nazi Germany in the late 1930s & early 40s. They were always looking for new ways to experiment with children...

There you go! Spoken like a true Alabamian redneck! Huzzah to you baby... keep rolling!

You didn't answer the question. Answer it.