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

[Silhouette]

So since WE ALL AGREE THAT MARRIAGE ANTICIPATES CHILDREN AND IMPLICITLY INVOLVES THEM

Ummmm ... who is this mysterious "we"?

My brother's been married 20+ years, and children were never anticipated.

You just supported what I said in my last post:

In fact, your cult often brings up the intrinsic bind of children to the word "marriage" and even pushed Kennedy to "do it for the children"...when not all gays had children or even wanted them...who sought to be married.

I was saying the mdk/Skylar/Syriusly posters are hypocrites. They launch from there into saying polygamy marriage can never happen because of children they anticipate will arrive in said marriage....just after saying to Kennedy "do this for the children who benefit from marriage!"

 

[Montrovant]

1. From the Law Review you linked, section I A. The Rule : "The doctrine, although subject to many exceptions, allows minors to disaffirm or "void" a contract that they entered as a minor."

In other words, if a minor signs a contract, the Infancy Doctrine allows them to void that contract. It does not mean that a contract signed by two adults is voided by the children of those signatories. The children of a married couple have not entered into that marriage contract.

.

Dude there are 35 pages of quotes from that link in post #4. You cherry picked one sentence to represent the comprehensive whole of that document? You're hilarious. Yes, that's true about children actually signing a contract with adults. But there are IMPLIED contracts as well, not just expressed ones. And unless you or one of your buddies here is going to lie and say that implied contracts aren't equally weighty or enforceable as expressed ones, you have to admit that implied = contract.

I'll rebut the remainder of your point thusly: Children are absolutely anticipated when the word "marriage" is spoken. You would have thousands of years of precedent against you to assert the opposite. In fact, your cult often brings up the intrinsic bind of children to the word "marriage" and even pushed Kennedy to "do it for the children"...when not all gays had children or even wanted them...who sought to be married. Following the link in the OP here to the Browns case for polygamy, just count the number of posts from mdk, Skylar, Syriusly and other LGBT apologists here at USMB that say "polygamy can't happen because of the children". You can't walk both sides of the fence like that. I'm drawing a line in the sand.

So since WE ALL AGREE THAT MARRIAGE ANTICIPATES CHILDREN AND IMPLICITLY INVOLVES THEM, we have to look at how a marriage contract that strips them of the hope of either a mother or father for life, fits into the broad spirit of the Infants Doctrine. That being said, I will leave you with another quote from the OP:

.

Any contract which a court deems to be detrimental to the interests of the child is void, plain and simple. It is not voidable - it is void. It is as if it never existed. Of course, this takes a court order to achieve but it is an important deterrent to commercial hustlers who would not hesitate to extract money from a child. Contracts With Children

Cherry pick? I quoted the part of the document that defines the Infancy Doctrine.

Even if we go with your implied contract argument, children are not an implied member of the marriage contract. They cannot leave a marriage or sue for divorce.

Same sex marriage can be good (or bad) for children without assuming all such marriages will have children involved. If a gay couple has children, allowing them to marry may improve the life of those children. That doesn't mean one should assume all gay married couples would have children, just as all straight married couples do not have children.

What does the Brown case have to do with LGBT? First of all, linking to your own threads, as you do all the time, is completely asinine. Second, the article on the Brown case that you link to in that other thread has nothing to do with any LGBT groups that I saw.

I don't know what any 'LGBT apologists' on this site have said, but I'm going to guess none of them said that children are an implied part of the marriage contract.

The only 'we' that agrees marriage anticipates children and implicitly involves them are you and the voices in your head.

 

[mdk]

I was saying the mdk/Skylar/Syriusly posters are hypocrites. They launch from there into saying polygamy marriage can never happen because of children they anticipate will arrive in said marriage....just after saying to Kennedy "do this for the children who benefit from marriage

Link to a single post of mine in that thread where I've stated that 'polygamy can't happen b/c of the children.' You can't because you're a lying sack of shit.

 

[mdk]

^^ No, I mean you and me, "we" agree children are anticipated parties to marriage.

No, we don't actually agree, but you can lie to yourself if makes you feel better. After all, that is pretty much all you do here.

 

[Silhouette]

Same sex marriage can be good (or bad) for children without assuming all such marriages will have children involved. If a gay couple has children, allowing them to marry may improve the life of those children. That doesn't mean one should assume all gay married couples would have children, just as all straight married couples do not have children.

If polyamorist couples have children, allowing them to marry may improve the life of those children. What the gays cried to Kennedy was that children would be harmed if the gays handling them couldn't be married. This is the key point that swayed Kennedy (the swing vote which could've killed Obergefell's case instead). So my point is, that the LGBT crowd admits that children are an implicit consideration, nay, a KEY consideration in the word "marriage"...only when it's polygamy marriage. When it's called to their attention that gay marriage legally binds a child away from either a mother or father for life, then suddenly they switch and say "children have nothing to do with the marriage contract, literally or even implied!!" And that is an extremely slimy and hypocritical stance.

Either they lied to Kennedy or they're lying about polygamists. For each reason the Gaystapo gives for why polygamists should not be married (because of the children), I can give a point why gays should not be married, because of the children.

In either event, we all agree that marriage implicitly anticipates/involves children at some point.

 

[mdk]

Couldn't find that quote of mine, could you?

It's okay. We both know you're full of shit.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ THE BIGGEST troll at USMB. Look back at your posts mdk. For that matter, anyone look back at mdk's posts. He exists to stonewall conversations, hurl ad hominems and offer as little substance as humanly possible to the debate. You and Skylar are THE definition of trolls. It's actually infantile it's such a habit.

Literally this troll's habit is to just repeat over and over "I know you are but what am I??!" Like a third grader on a playground.

 

[Montrovant]

^^ THE BIGGEST troll at USMB. Look back at your posts mdk. For that matter, anyone look back at mdk's posts. He exists to stonewall conversations, hurl ad hominems and offer as little substance as humanly possible to the debate. You and Skylar are THE definition of trolls. It's actually infantile it's such a habit.

Literally this troll's habit is to just repeat over and over "I know you are but what am I??!" Like a third grader on a playground.

You seem to have a misunderstanding about what the word literally means.

 

[mdk]

^^ THE BIGGEST troll at USMB. Look back at your posts mdk. For that matter, anyone look back at mdk's posts. He exists to stonewall conversations, hurl ad hominems and offer as little substance as humanly possible to the debate. You and Skylar are THE definition of trolls. It's actually infantile it's such a habit.

Literally this troll's habit is to just repeat over and over "I know you are but what am I??!" Like a third grader on a playground.

Poor little crybaby. You couldn't backup your accusation so you've elected to whine instead. Too funny.

 

[Silhouette]

Are you incapable of posting without ad hominem? ^^

 

[Silhouette]

.
I don't know what any 'LGBT apologists' on this site have said, but I'm going to guess none of them said that children are an implied part of the marriage contract.

The only 'we' that agrees marriage anticipates children and implicitly involves them are you and the voices in your head.

They did in fact assert vigorously that children's considerations were paramount when considering whether or not to grant certain people the right to marry.., when we were discussing polygamy over at the Browns thread: Brown Family Pushes Polyamory-Orientation To USSC Ultimately For Marriage Equality: A Poll

I missed your thoughts on the quote below. Your thoughts?

Any contract which a court deems to be detrimental to the interests of the child is void, plain and simple. It is not voidable - it is void. It is as if it never existed. Of course, this takes a court order to achieve but it is an important deterrent to commercial hustlers who would not hesitate to extract money from a child. Contracts With Children

I assume you're aware that a gay marriage contract legally divorces any children involved in marriage from either a mother or father for life?

 

[Montrovant]

.
I don't know what any 'LGBT apologists' on this site have said, but I'm going to guess none of them said that children are an implied part of the marriage contract.

The only 'we' that agrees marriage anticipates children and implicitly involves them are you and the voices in your head.

They did in fact assert vigorously that children's considerations were paramount when considering whether or not to grant certain people the right to marry.., when we were discussing polygamy over at the Browns thread: Brown Family Pushes Polyamory-Orientation To USSC Ultimately For Marriage Equality: A Poll

I missed your thoughts on the quote below. Your thoughts?

Any contract which a court deems to be detrimental to the interests of the child is void, plain and simple. It is not voidable - it is void. It is as if it never existed. Of course, this takes a court order to achieve but it is an important deterrent to commercial hustlers who would not hesitate to extract money from a child. Contracts With Children

I assume you're aware that a gay marriage contract legally divorces any children involved in marriage from either a mother or father for life?

You can assume all you want. What the voices in your head tell you are not the same things the rest of the world believes.

That quote is, once again, in relation to the Infancy Doctrine, which is about children as signatories of contracts. Children are not a member of a marriage contract. They cannot go to court and get a divorce.

You seem unable to separate the idea that many married couples have children with the idea that children are an integral part of marriage. Marriage does not require children, nor are children any sort of legal expectation of marriage. If someone is opposed to polygamy because of children, they do not have to assume that all polygamous marriages will have children.

 

[Silhouette]

That quote is, once again, in relation to the Infancy Doctrine, which is about children as signatories of contracts. Children are not a member of a marriage contract. They cannot go to court and get a divorce.

You seem unable to separate the idea that many married couples have children with the idea that children are an integral part of marriage. Marriage does not require children, nor are children any sort of legal expectation of marriage. If someone is opposed to polygamy because of children, they do not have to assume that all polygamous marriages will have children.

The rest of the world believes that children are parties to any marriage. They are anticipated to arrive in all marriages, whether or not they actually do. And once arrived they are implicit parts of any marriage contract.

You mentioned divorce. Good. Let's talk about that. A good deal of any divorce proceeding in court is devoted to the "best interests of the children" as far as alimony, parental contact and custody. You will find no divorce where children arrived in that marriage, devoid of a large share of time being devoted to "the best interests of children in this divorce". So not only do we find children as an inseparable concept from marriage, we find them as an inseparable concept from divorce.

Thanks for demonstrating my points.

Now given all that, let me ask you again how you feel about this quote, realizing that of course (anticipated or arrived) children are implied parties to any marriage contract and that gay marriage legally strips them of either a mother or father for life:

Any contract which a court deems to be detrimental to the interests of the child is void, plain and simple. It is not voidable - it is void. It is as if it never existed. Of course, this takes a court order to achieve but it is an important deterrent to commercial hustlers who would not hesitate to extract money from a child. Contracts With Children

 

[mdk]

Are you incapable of posting without ad hominem? ^^

It appears you're incapable of providing proof of your earlier accusation against me. The reason is quite simple, you can't b/c you've imagined it. Keep whining, though. It pleases me greatly.

 

[mdk]

The rest of the world believes that children are parties to any marriage. They are anticipated to arrive in all marriages, whether or not they actually do. And once arrived they are implicit parts of any marriage contract

Bullshit. No matter how many times to repeat it children are not a party to a marriage contract in any state in this nation. That's the reason why this argument isn't being presented in court.

 

[Montrovant]

That quote is, once again, in relation to the Infancy Doctrine, which is about children as signatories of contracts. Children are not a member of a marriage contract. They cannot go to court and get a divorce.

You seem unable to separate the idea that many married couples have children with the idea that children are an integral part of marriage. Marriage does not require children, nor are children any sort of legal expectation of marriage. If someone is opposed to polygamy because of children, they do not have to assume that all polygamous marriages will have children.

The rest of the world believes that children are parties to any marriage. They are anticipated to arrive in all marriages, whether or not they actually do. And once arrived they are implicit parts of any marriage contract.

You mentioned divorce. Good. Let's talk about that. A good deal of any divorce proceeding in court is devoted to the "best interests of the children" as far as alimony, parental contact and custody. You will find no divorce where children arrived in that marriage, devoid of a large share of time being devoted to "the best interests of children in this divorce". So not only do we find children as an inseparable concept from marriage, we find them as an inseparable concept from divorce.

Thanks for demonstrating my points.

Now given all that, let me ask you again how you feel about this quote, realizing that of course (anticipated or arrived) children are implied parties to any marriage contract and that gay marriage legally strips them of either a mother or father for life:

Any contract which a court deems to be detrimental to the interests of the child is void, plain and simple. It is not voidable - it is void. It is as if it never existed. Of course, this takes a court order to achieve but it is an important deterrent to commercial hustlers who would not hesitate to extract money from a child. Contracts With Children

Ignoring that I don't believe that children are parties to any marriage in the rest of the world, what the rest of the world does is immaterial to US law. In the US, children are not parties in the marriage contract. Marriage is possible with or without children. There is no part of marriage that I am aware of which says anything like, "You will most likely be having children after you are married, so.....". Have you not been shown court rulings regarding children as a requirement for marriage? Court rulings which say that marriage is perfectly legitimate with or without children?

Yes, let's talk about divorce. Can a child get a divorce from the marriage of its parents? Unless the answer is yes, how can you claim that the child is a party to the marriage?

A couple's children are part of a divorce settlement. So? A couple's children are part of their legal lives whether they are married or not. If a couple is never married, have children, and split up, there will likely be court proceedings regarding the best interests of the children.

The only thing I have demonstrated is the false nature of your points.

I will answer, again, that the quote you keep repeating is in regards to the Infancy Doctrine, which is about minors as participants in a contract. Minors are not participants in the marriage contracts of their parents.

 

[ogibillm]

when do we start forcing divorced couples to marry each other again?

 

[Syriusly]

^^ No, I mean you and me, "we" agree children are anticipated parties to marriage.

Again- the voices in your head do not really count as we.

My 80 year old uncle recently married a woman in her 70's.

I can guarantee that children are not anticipated parties to their marriage.

 

[ogibillm]

I'm curious, how i was party to a contract prior to conception?

 

[Syriusly]

That quote is, once again, in relation to the Infancy Doctrine, which is about children as signatories of contracts. Children are not a member of a marriage contract. They cannot go to court and get a divorce.

You seem unable to separate the idea that many married couples have children with the idea that children are an integral part of marriage. Marriage does not require children, nor are children any sort of legal expectation of marriage. If someone is opposed to polygamy because of children, they do not have to assume that all polygamous marriages will have children.

You mentioned divorce. Good. Let's talk about that. A good deal of any divorce proceeding in court is devoted to the "best interests of the children" as far as alimony, parental contact and custody. =

Yet none of a divorce is about whether children can prevent a divorce.

IF children were part of a marriage contract- then they would have a say in allowing a divorce.

Indeed- if children were actually part of a marriage contract- they could initiate a divorce themselves- or a third party conservator could do so on their behalf.

Where are the judges telling married couples that they must get divorced because the children have decided that they must be divorced?

Your posts are pure delusions- as usual.