Judge Roy Moore of Alabama Can Win If He Does This: Argues For Alabama's Children

[Silhouette]

Not only did I not ignore what you said; I answered you in great detail point by point. So your tactic is that if you lose a debate, you accuse your opponent of "ignoring you" when they answer your point by point?

The main win I have over you in this debate is that Justice Kennedy agrees with me that children derive benefits from marriage...so much so that he hinged his approval of Obergefell on that main point. You can't turn around and argue in front of that same man: "your honor, our position is that children do not implicitly share in the marriage contract."

And you know it. From that given then, Obergefell is illegal because it revised a contract children share in and derive benefits from, paramount of which are BOTH a mother and father, to now divorce them by legal bind for life (no less) from either a mother or father. And all THAT without children's unique interests (to derive both a mother and father) in marriage having representation at Obergefell.

And if that wasn't bad enough, two of the Justices and one of them in particular was out in public giving interviews with media about how she believed "America was ready for gay marriage", MONTHS in ADVANCE of the Hearing on Obergefell...which guess what, was about "should the fed force all 50 states to ratify gay marriage"...WHILE IT WAS PENDING IN HER COURT. According to Capterton vs AT Massey Coal, (USSC 2009) Ginsburg herself, signed off that no judge or jurist in the USA may display bias and not recuse themselves. She violated her own Finding!

Judge Moore of Alabama could literally sit back with a blindfold on and just throw darts in any direction and prevail on Alabama's sovereignty in this matter. Other points he could hit on:

1. That Obergefell, as Scalia described it, was new legislation that never existed before (not even remotely to be derived from the Constitution since nothing in there is mentioned about sexual behaviors)

2. You can't have just some sexual orientations able to marry but not others when you're citing the 14th Amendment to justify doing so.

3. That US v Windsor 2013 cited no less than 56 times that the qualifications for marriage was unquestionably residing in states' powers. In fact it used this premise to destroy parts of DOMA. (56 reiterations from Windsor) Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

4. Between Windsor and Obergefell we have a complete turnabout by the court. On the one hand if the fed tries to control marriage when it denies just some sexual orientations (the Court's favorites, but not others), then "the fed has no business defining marriage for the states". But when it comes to forcing gay marriage on the 50 states who do not want that; then all of a sudden the 56 times reiterated in Windsor don't matter and "now the fed can define marriage for the states"...except for polygamists and incest orientations; which for some reason the 14th doesn't protect...even though it didn't protect gay sex behaviors either..

Between Windsor and Obergefell, the Court really did pull an autocratic stunt where it was blatantly stealing power away from Congress at its whim, discriminating against some sexual orientations also (ironically) while it did all that under the guise of "equality". It said "the Congress can't enact laws we disagree with". And "but we (unelected 5 people only) can enact laws the Congress and the 50 states disagree with; even though our Branch does not have the powers of legislation". And the reason they were "able" to do this is via the false premise that "just some sexual behaviors are the same as static race or gender".

Thank God for Hively v Ivy Tech recently in the 7th circuit which made it plain and clear that that is a false premise. Hively v Ivy Tech now stands at odds with Obergefell.

Scalia was right. No wonder this case bothered him more than any other in his career. It ate away at him actually.

For the umpteenth time : Just because children get some benefit from their parent's marriage does not make them a party to that contract.

Polygamy is not a sexual orientation.

The states have power over marriage so long as they do not violate the Constitution. Again, something that has been pointed out to you ad nauseam.

Contracts implied in fact are inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case or the conduct of the parties. However, such contracts are not formally or explicitly stated in words. The law makes no distinction between contracts created by words and those created by conduct. Thus, a contract implied in fact is just as binding as an express contracts that arises from the parties’ declared intentions, with the only difference being that for contracts implied in fact courts will infer the parties’ intentions from their business relations and course of dealings. Express and Implied Contracts – Contracts

In Obergefell, Kennedy spoke of his declared intentions of children needing their parents to be married so those kids could have the benefits of marriage. As such, Kennedy defined that they are part of an implied contract which supplies children with benefits. Yet nobody on earth would dispute that one of those benefits for thousands of years longstanding was to provide the child with BOTH a mother and father. In one fell swoop, Kennedy in essence announced "children are parties to the marriage contract because of the benefits they derive from it. But now I will systematically dismantle the chief benefit they've enjoyed for thousands of years in order to "better" their lives". Hows that for a bullshit buffet? He ratified a legal contractual bind that divorces a child from either a mother or father for life no less. And, children had no representation at Obergefell for their share in the proposed contract revision. It was JUST DONE quantitatively and qualitatively to childrens' DETRIMENT as an onerous legal bind FOR LIFE...

 

[mdk]

Each one of your broken record points have been shattered on numerous occasion and by a myriad of posters here. Your incessant need to keep repeating yourself in no way makes your points valid. Just b/c you choose to be willfully blind doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow suit.

My posts vary in contrast to yours Uber-Troll mdk. I challenged any of the users here to check your posts. They are all merely a version of this type of troll response I just quoted you as saying. Your posts are almost identical, one after the other....and 20,000 of them too. Dedicated you are to trolling. Getting through to readers you are not.

I eviscerated your points on the first page of this thread and you ignored it. That's what you always do when the facts don't jibe with your anti-gay narrative. My posts are almost identical!? That's rich considering I bet you have less then 1,000 posts where you're not gassing on about queers. You're a one-trick pony. Nothing more. Keep whining, though. It amuses me. lol

 

[mdk]

Scalia was right. No wonder this case bothered him more than any other in his career. It ate away at him actually.

Besides your addled imagination what evidence do you have for that assumption? None. You're just looking to blame his death on gays like you do for everything else.

 

[Syriusly]

Still waiting for Silhouette to explain why she is opposed to polygamous marriage.

SHE says she is against Americans marrying the same gender because their children will be deprived of either a mother or a father.

That would not happen in a polygamous marriage.

It is rather telling that she refuses to say why she opposes polygamous marriage.

Because it would destroy her own rational against gay marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Quick! A strawman! STAT!!!

 

[Syriusly]

^^ Quick! A strawman! STAT!!!

Quick_ Silhouette refuses to answer why she opposes polygamous marriage again!

 

[Silhouette]

You wouldn't happen to have a sock puppet named "BettiYeti" would you?

 

[Syriusly]

You wouldn't happen to have a sock puppet named "BettiYeti" would you?

Why won't Silhouette explain why she opposes polygamous marriage?

Because doing so would make her own mental house of cards collapse.

 

[Silhouette]

You wouldn't happen to have a sock puppet named "BettiYeti" would you?

Why won't Silhouette explain why she opposes polygamous marriage?

Because doing so would make her own mental house of cards collapse.

You mean again, for like the 5th time? I'm not chasing your strawman 5 times. There has to be a limit somehow. I get you don't want to talk about the points of Kennedy's "help the children who derive benefits from marriage by harming them in the main benefit they derived from marriage"; but again, there has to be a limit on the number of times I tell you.

OK, one last time on polygamy: I don't like it because of the children. And for the same reason I oppose gay marriage. With numbers of wives, the ability for one man to procreate dozens and dozens of children goes up. That many children will dilute the contact each child has with his father. So it's like a low calorie "divorced from your father" version of the gay divorced from either a mother or father in whole, 100% divorced and a full void, for the duration of the child's life AS A LEGAL BIND AND INSTITUTION.

So the reasons I object to both is because of the intrinsic benefits children used to derive from marriage; chief of all: a mother and father. But since there is still a father in polygamy, there is still like a "camp counselor" aspect of the child's contact with him, rather than 0% contact with him as in lesbian "marriages", or no mother in gay male "marriages"

 

[Syriusly]

You wouldn't happen to have a sock puppet named "BettiYeti" would you?

Why won't Silhouette explain why she opposes polygamous marriage?

Because doing so would make her own mental house of cards collapse.

You mean again, for like the 5th time? I'm not chasing your strawman 5 times. There has to be a limit somehow. I get you don't want to talk about the points of Kennedy's "help the children who derive benefits from marriage by harming them in the main benefit they derived from marriage"; but again, there has to be a limit on the number of times I tell you.

OK, one last time on polygamy: I don't like it because of the children. And for the same reason I oppose gay marriage. With numbers of wives, the ability for one man to procreate dozens and dozens of children goes up. That many children will dilute the contact each child has with his father. So it's like a low calorie "divorced from your father" version of the gay divorced from either a mother or father in whole, 100% divorced and a full void, for the duration of the child's life AS A LEGAL BIND AND INSTITUTION.

So the reasons I object to both is because of the intrinsic benefits children used to derive from marriage; chief of all: a mother and father. But since there is still a father in polygamy, there is still like a "camp counselor" aspect of the child's contact with him, rather than 0% contact with him as in lesbian "marriages", or no mother in gay male "marriages"

LOL- so you object to children of gay parents having two legal parents because the children will have a mother or father missing.

And you object to the children of polygamous parents having 3 or 15 legal parents because the children will have both a mother and a father.

'dilute contact'?

So a father who has a dozen children- which used to be rather common- is threatening the welfare of his children- but the polygamous father who has 6 children- is diluting his 'parenting' even less- but you object to the polygamous marriage because......

Oh hell I can't follow you down your rabbit hole.

 

[Silhouette]

Why won't Silhouette explain why she opposes polygamous marriage?

Because doing so would make her own mental house of cards collapse.

You mean again, for like the 5th time? I'm not chasing your strawman 5 times. There has to be a limit somehow. I get you don't want to talk about the points of Kennedy's "help the children who derive benefits from marriage by harming them in the main benefit they derived from marriage"; but again, there has to be a limit on the number of times I tell you.

OK, one last time on polygamy: I don't like it because of the children. And for the same reason I oppose gay marriage. With numbers of wives, the ability for one man to procreate dozens and dozens of children goes up. That many children will dilute the contact each child has with his father. So it's like a low calorie "divorced from your father" version of the gay divorced from either a mother or father in whole, 100% divorced and a full void, for the duration of the child's life AS A LEGAL BIND AND INSTITUTION.

So the reasons I object to both is because of the intrinsic benefits children used to derive from marriage; chief of all: a mother and father. But since there is still a father in polygamy, there is still like a "camp counselor" aspect of the child's contact with him, rather than 0% contact with him as in lesbian "marriages", or no mother in gay male "marriages"

LOL- so you object to children of gay parents having two legal parents because the children will have a mother or father missing....And you object to the children of polygamous parents having 3 or 15 legal parents because the children will have both a mother and a father.....'dilute contact'?...So a father who has a dozen children- which used to be rather common- is threatening the welfare of his children- but the polygamous father who has 6 children- is diluting his 'parenting' even less- but you object to the polygamous marriage because......
Oh hell I can't follow you down your rabbit hole.

I told you, the more children a man has, the more dilute his contact with each one. But even still, he then functions more like a camp counselor and it is a better situation still than a boy who has been permanently divorced from a father for life in a lesbian "marriage" or a girl being divorced for life from a mother in a gay male "marriage"; both as a matter of a contractual bind: providing that void for children 100% of the time.

So, I'm not in favor of polygamy. But that being said it is still preferable to the children's benefits from marriage (chief of which = both a mother and father) than "gay marriage" that legally-bifurcates a child for life from either a mother or father.

It's interesting you find children's suffering (lack of mother or father for life via a contractual bind) "LOL" funny. Because I don't find it funny at all.

 

[Syriusly]

[
I told you, the more children a man has, the more dilute his contact with each one. But even still, he then functions more like a camp counselor and it is a better situation still than a boy who has been permanently divorced from a father for life in a lesbian "marriage" or a girl being divorced for life from a mother in a gay male "marriage"; both as a matter of a contractual bind: providing that void for children 100% of the time...

Except of course that is no more true than a divorce ends up with a void for the children 100% of the time.

If a woman divorces and remarries- if the mother has primary custody- the children have mother and a step-father- not a 'father' in their lives. But they still have a father who is in their lives.

If two women marry, and have children- there is nothing precluding them from having the biological father in the children's lives in exactly the same manner.

THE only thing that preventing the two women from marrying accomplishes is making sure that their children- unlike the children living with a step father- don't have married parents.

Your 'logic' always falls apart.

You say in a polygamous marriage the child's 'fatherhood' experience is diluted- but no more so than in a marriage with 12 children, or in a marriage where the father is in the Navy and deployed 8 months a year- yet you oppose polygamous marriage.

In the same manner you oppose 'gay marriage' even though you know that prohibiting gay marriage does not benefit a single child- ever. It only harms children.

And that is because again- your only objective is to harm gay Americans.

And their children.

 

[Silhouette]

I told you, the more children a man has, the more dilute his contact with each one. But even still, he then functions more like a camp counselor and it is a better situation still than a boy who has been permanently divorced from a father for life in a lesbian "marriage" or a girl being divorced for life from a mother in a gay male "marriage"; both as a matter of a contractual bind: providing that void for children 100% of the time...

Except of course that is no more true than a divorce ends up with a void for the children 100% of the time.

Pulled that one out of your ass did you? You expect readers here to not know the court devotes about half the time in court in a divorce discussing how to keep the children in contact with BOTH their mother and father? This chief benefit lives on, even in divorce. But it doesn't exist at all in "gay marriage" or gay "divorce".. There is always and nothing but a void of the missing mother or father in those cases 100% of the time. Obergefell simply eliminated children from having their main benefit of marriage, while claiming it was doing so "so that children could benefit from marriage".

Kennedy will be eating his words. Guarantee you that.

 

[Montrovant]

I told you, the more children a man has, the more dilute his contact with each one. But even still, he then functions more like a camp counselor and it is a better situation still than a boy who has been permanently divorced from a father for life in a lesbian "marriage" or a girl being divorced for life from a mother in a gay male "marriage"; both as a matter of a contractual bind: providing that void for children 100% of the time...

Except of course that is no more true than a divorce ends up with a void for the children 100% of the time.

Pulled that one out of your ass did you? You expect readers here to not know the court devotes about half the time in court in a divorce discussing how to keep the children in contact with BOTH their mother and father? This chief benefit lives on, even in divorce. But it doesn't exist at all in "gay marriage" or gay "divorce".. There is always and nothing but a void of the missing mother or father in those cases 100% of the time. Obergefell simply eliminated children from having their main benefit of marriage, while claiming it was doing so "so that children could benefit from marriage".

Kennedy will be eating his words. Guarantee you that.

If a gay married couple has children, do you think the courts will not spend significant time on those children in the case of divorce?

If an unmarried couple splits, do you think the courts will not spend significant time on those children?

 

[Silhouette]

If a gay married couple has children, do you think the courts will not spend significant time on those children in the case of divorce?

If an unmarried couple splits, do you think the courts will not spend significant time on those children?

Unmarried isn't up for debate here since this is about gay "marriage" or not. As for the gay divorce, or marriage, 100% of the time the missing gendered parent is guaranteed to still be missing. 100% of the time with "gay marriage" or "gay divorce" this void will exist as a matter of a legally binding contract; a contract whose previous chief benefit shared by children was the presence of BOTH a mother and father in their daily lives.

Remember, Judge Moore will be discussing his defense of not authorizing such a legal bind in his state against the better interests of children. What happens to children outside a legally binding contract isn't part of the accusations against Judge Moore.

 

[Montrovant]

If a gay married couple has children, do you think the courts will not spend significant time on those children in the case of divorce?

If an unmarried couple splits, do you think the courts will not spend significant time on those children?

Unmarried isn't up for debate here since this is about gay "marriage" or not. As for the gay divorce, or marriage, 100% of the time the missing gendered parent is guaranteed to still be missing. 100% of the time with "gay marriage" or "gay divorce" this void will exist as a matter of a legally binding contract; a contract whose previous chief benefit shared by children was the presence of BOTH a mother and father in their daily lives.

Remember, Judge Moore will be discussing his defense of not authorizing such a legal bind in his state against the better interests of children. What happens to children outside a legally binding contract isn't part of the accusations against Judge Moore.

You are the one who has used the fact that children and child custody are a big part of divorces in which the couple has children to say that children are party to the marriage contract. When someone points out that child custody is involved when an unmarried couple splits, however, suddenly it's not relevant?

If you don't want same sex couples to be able to have children, that's a different issue than same sex marriage. Same sex couples can have children whether married or not. If marriage benefits children, then same sex couples being able to marry will benefit their children.

You think the chief benefit for children of married parents is that they have a mother and father. Others perhaps see having two parents, whatever their genders, as the chief benefit; perhaps others see some other aspect of marriage as the chief benefit. Whatever the chief benefit for children may be, marriage is not predicated on a couple having children and a couple's children are not parties to the marriage contract.

 

[Silhouette]

You are the one who has used the fact that children and child custody are a big part of divorces in which the couple has children to say that children are party to the marriage contract. When someone points out that child custody is involved when an unmarried couple splits, however, suddenly it's not relevant?...If you don't want same sex couples to be able to have children, that's a different issue than same sex marriage. Same sex couples can have children whether married or not. If marriage benefits children, then same sex couples being able to marry will benefit their children.....You think the chief benefit for children of married parents is that they have a mother and father. Others perhaps see having two parents, whatever their genders, as the chief benefit; perhaps others see some other aspect of marriage as the chief benefit. Whatever the chief benefit for children may be, marriage is not predicated on a couple having children and a couple's children are not parties to the marriage contract.

Well Kennedy can't have the luxury of legitimizing "gay marriage" for the benefits he says it will give children; while doing so eliminates THE chief benefit children derived from marriage can he? Two men can never replace the unique qualities a mother gives her children. Two women can never replace the unique qualities a father gives his children. So, there is no debating that. As you know, literally thousands of studies have been done showing the detriment that the void the lack of a mother or father leaves in the life of a child.

We aren't talking about unmarried parents because there is no contract involved there binding a child to those conditions for life with legal force. You know this. So stop denying you don't know the difference. It makes you look silly, and worse, deceitful.

 

[Montrovant]

You are the one who has used the fact that children and child custody are a big part of divorces in which the couple has children to say that children are party to the marriage contract. When someone points out that child custody is involved when an unmarried couple splits, however, suddenly it's not relevant?...If you don't want same sex couples to be able to have children, that's a different issue than same sex marriage. Same sex couples can have children whether married or not. If marriage benefits children, then same sex couples being able to marry will benefit their children.....You think the chief benefit for children of married parents is that they have a mother and father. Others perhaps see having two parents, whatever their genders, as the chief benefit; perhaps others see some other aspect of marriage as the chief benefit. Whatever the chief benefit for children may be, marriage is not predicated on a couple having children and a couple's children are not parties to the marriage contract.

Well Kennedy can't have the luxury of legitimizing "gay marriage" for the benefits he says it will give children; while doing so eliminates THE chief benefit children derived from marriage can he? Two men can never replace the unique qualities a mother gives her children. Two women can never replace the unique qualities a father gives his children. So, there is no debating that. As you know, literally thousands of studies have been done showing the detriment that the void the lack of a mother or father leaves in the life of a child.

We aren't talking about unmarried parents because there is no contract involved there binding a child to those conditions for life with legal force. You know this. So stop denying you don't know the difference. It makes you look silly, and worse, deceitful.

The irony is thick with this one.

As I just said, that you consider the chief benefit of marriage to be a child having a mother and father does not mean that everyone shares your opinion.

I would guess that most studies involving the lack of a mother or father in a child's life involved single parents rather than same sex parents. You know, like the Prince's Trust survey you so often have cited, which never once mentions same sex parents?

I know there is a difference between an unmarried and married couple. What you seem unwilling or unable to accept is that child custody is a legal issue when a couple splits, whether that couple is married or not.

You are able to provide no law, no court ruling, no legal precedent which states that children are a party to the marriage contract of their parents. That is because it is not true. Stop claiming that it is, it makes you look silly and deceitful. Then again, most of the things you post make you look silly and deceitful.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You are the one who has used the fact that children and child custody are a big part of divorces in which the couple has children to say that children are party to the marriage contract. When someone points out that child custody is involved when an unmarried couple splits, however, suddenly it's not relevant?...If you don't want same sex couples to be able to have children, that's a different issue than same sex marriage. Same sex couples can have children whether married or not. If marriage benefits children, then same sex couples being able to marry will benefit their children.....You think the chief benefit for children of married parents is that they have a mother and father. Others perhaps see having two parents, whatever their genders, as the chief benefit; perhaps others see some other aspect of marriage as the chief benefit. Whatever the chief benefit for children may be, marriage is not predicated on a couple having children and a couple's children are not parties to the marriage contract.

Well Kennedy can't have the luxury of legitimizing "gay marriage" for the benefits he says it will give children; while doing so eliminates THE chief benefit children derived from marriage can he? Two men can never replace the unique qualities a mother gives her children. Two women can never replace the unique qualities a father gives his children. So, there is no debating that. As you know, literally thousands of studies have been done showing the detriment that the void the lack of a mother or father leaves in the life of a child.

We aren't talking about unmarried parents because there is no contract involved there binding a child to those conditions for life with legal force. You know this. So stop denying you don't know the difference. It makes you look silly, and worse, deceitful.

At least you’re consistent at being ignorant, wrong, and a bigot.

 

[Silhouette]

And you ^^ are consistent offering ad hominem when you have no substantive rebuttal to offer...