Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

[WinterBorn]

Fags are criminal deviants and always will be. They are sexual predators at their core.

Oh please, you are not going to trot out that tired old "All homosexuals are sexual predators" bullshit, are you?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

When was being black a crime in this country, Syriusly? You can't use the constitution to back your case when the constitution allowed states to put faggots to death for years and years as criminals.

 

[Silhouette]

Offensivelyopenminded, that's enough. I've reported you for slurs and egging on a flame war with intent to derail good points otherwise made.

And if the couple decide that they are not having any children, is the marriage defunct?

Or if, by age or medical malady, the couple is incapable of having children, is their marriage valid?

No. A general provision of a contract applied over a society can come with a rider that says "you can choose no children". It's just that if a couple does choose children, they are mandated to be mother and father. So therefore, only men may marry women and vice versa because the dominant partners in marriage contracts, the reason they were created since the dawn of time, are the children who rely on the best stable home in order to thrive as adults/productive members of society.

Again, just because children are not present at the time the contract is signed does not mean they are not anticipated as implicit to the contract. Just as budding business partners have no profits on day one, those future profits after the contract is signed are absolutely implied to the contract.

I defy you to find any recent legal precedent for that. And by recent, I mean during a time when women were not considered property when they marry.

Prior to 2015 is recent. The common understanding of bother mother and father being vital to children in marriage has been maintained from time immemorial to 2015 and beyond.

They obviously did not consider it vital, since the divorce laws created a situation in which 46% of children under 18 were in a single parent home. But you steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge that.

The divorce laws also anticipated children living in a marriage contract that no longer was serving their best interest. A hostile married home was considered harmful to them. Further evidence that divorce considered children as implicit partners to the contract is the length of time the court takes in insuring the kids still have regular contact with both mother and father after the unfortunate decision to divorce is made/granted.

Ask any divorced man and wife and they'll tell you the marriage still exists for the sake of the children; only now there are two homes instead of one.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Syriusly...you are beyond dumb. Comparing interracial marriage to faggotry is insane. They are not even close to the same thing. Ever.

50 years ago you would have been whining about 'N*ggers marrying white women'

I'm mixed race so no I wouldn't. And homos are not a race, so stop with the false equivelancy arguments.

 

[WinterBorn]

When was being black a crime in this country, Syriusly? You can't use the constitution to back your case when the constitution allowed states to put faggots to death for years and tears as criminals.

And once that was overturned, it became a moot point. And that happened in 2003.

Oh, and the last law allowing the death penalty for homosexuality was repealed in 1873. So much for recent.

 

[mdk]

Sil thinks divorces are only granted when they don't serve the best interest of the child. How many divorces have been denied b/c it was the in the best interest for the child that the parents stayed together?

 

[Silhouette]

Sil thinks divorces are only granted when they don't serve the best interest of the child. How many divorces have been denied b/c it was the in the best interest for the child that the parents stayed together?

None because the court's solution for the children's implicit enjoyment of the contract is to force the two divorced parents to cooperate as a team still to raise the children, only in two homes instead of one. The one home having become too hostile for the childrens' best enjoyment.

The point being the court recognizes that even when the two adults involved want nothing whatsoever to do with each other, they HAVE TO cooperate and see each other still to negotiate the most important partners to the marriage contract: the children.

If the adults were the most important partners to that contract, they'd have no obligation to maintain civility and contact for the continued raising of the children by both mother and father. But they do and they must. And therein is yet more proof that marriage contracts are about children and the adults mere secondary players...

Given that, Obergefell was a de facto illegal contract revision to the demise of the main enjoyers of said contract: children who got both mother and father from marriage.

 

[mdk]

Sil thinks divorces are only granted when they don't serve the best interest of the child. How many divorces have been denied b/c it was the in the best interest for the child that the parents stayed together?

None because the court's solution for the children's implicit enjoyment of the contract is to force the two divorced parents to cooperate as a team still to raise the children, only in two homes instead of one. The one home having become too hostile for the childrens' best enjoyment.

The point being the court recognizes that even when the two adults involved want nothing whatsoever to do with each other, they HAVE TO cooperate and see each other still to negotiate the most important partners to the marriage contract: the children.

If the adults were the most important partners to that contract, they'd have no obligation to maintain civility and contact for the continued raising of the children by both mother and father.

The only place where a child is an implicit partner in the marriage contract of their parents is in your imagination. No court in this nation recognizes that children are apart of the contract and, more importantly, nobody is beholden to legal standards you've pulled out of your ass. Not the courts, not the parents, not gay people, not straight people...not anyone.

 

[Syriusly]

Bull-the-fucking-shit they weren't! Marriage was created FOR, BY AND ABOUT stabilizing family units for the supreme benefit to children. Gawd you lie. Care to run that comment by a panel of your peers?

Feel free to prove that I am lying- prove what marriage was created for.

And no- I don't care what bullshit USMB poll you set up and then lie about what it says.

 

[Syriusly]

Sil thinks divorces are only granted when they don't serve the best interest of the child. How many divorces have been denied b/c it was the in the best interest for the child that the parents stayed together?

None because the court's solution for the children's implicit enjoyment of the contract is to force the two divorced parents to cooperate as a team still to raise the children, only in two homes instead of one. The one home having become too hostile for the childrens' best enjoyment..

And of course that is absolutely false.

The Divorce court doesn't 'force' the two divorced parents to cooperate- the court will 'force' a decision on how the child custody will be resolved. The only obligation the court will force on the the parents is that each will be financially responsible in someway.

If both parents divorce- and the kids end up living at Grandma's- the Divorce court doesn't care.

Nor does the court care whether the home is too hostile for the kids- that is a child welfare issue which is resolved outside Divorce.

Virtually all states are no-fault divorce- either parent can divorce without any reason- and the children's welfare does not determine the divorce.

No court will prevent a divorce because it would be in the children's best interest.

Even though in many of the cases it clearly would be.

 

[Syriusly]

Given that, Obergefell was a de facto illegal contract revision to the demise of the main enjoyers of said contract: children who got both mother and father from marriage.

And once again- that is entirely your fantasy.

Obergefell and his partner didn't even have children.

 

[Syriusly]

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Except that your premise is flawed: Race has Constitutional protections. Deviant sex practitioners do not. Loving was about race. All the convoluted spinoffs of that flawed premise hold no more water than a rotting sieve.

And, two adult individuals do not have the right to alter a contract to the demise of children who enjoy the right to both a mother and father in the marriage contract. And have enjoyed that right since time immemorial to 2015....taken away not by legislation, but by illegal judicial fiat of the USSC overstepping its powers and attempting to add new vitally-different language implied to the 14th Amendment without the permission of the Legislature (the governed). Which is sedition.

Unlike you I have read actual books of history.

Legal marriages- and that includes religious marriages- were created for many reasons- among them to legally control inheritances- and also to secure partnerships between families or even countries.

They were not created to ensure that children were raised by a mother and a father.

Bull-the-fucking-shit they weren't! Marriage was created FOR, BY AND ABOUT stabilizing family units for the supreme benefit to children. Gawd you lie. Care to run that comment by a panel of your peers?

Then why are you always going on and on about gay marriage? Straight marriages are responsible for more children not having a mother & father than gay marriage ever will have. If the point of marriage is to protect children, why aren't you out here screaming about divorce laws?

Because this is not about children.

Silhouette has tortured and twisted her rational about why homosexuals cannot possibly be married into a pretzel of irrational assumptions and conclusions.

There is no requirement that couples who decide to marry have children.
There is no requirement that couples who have children get married.
There is no requirement in marriage that married parents stay married for the children's sake.
There is no requirement that a parent be a role model.
Most children being raised without either a mother or father are the children of divorced single parents. Which Silhouete has no issue with.
Preventing a gay couple from marrying doesn't provide opposite gender parents to their kids.
Preventing a gay couple form marrying doesn't prevent them from having children.
But- allowing two gay parents to marry- provides certain protections for their kids- and provides those children with more financial security.

Silhouette doesn't want that.

Why does Silhouette want the children of gay couples to be harmed?

 

[Silhouette]

Sil thinks divorces are only granted when they don't serve the best interest of the child. How many divorces have been denied b/c it was the in the best interest for the child that the parents stayed together?

None because the court's solution for the children's implicit enjoyment of the contract is to force the two divorced parents to cooperate as a team still to raise the children, only in two homes instead of one. The one home having become too hostile for the childrens' best enjoyment.

The point being the court recognizes that even when the two adults involved want nothing whatsoever to do with each other, they HAVE TO cooperate and see each other still to negotiate the most important partners to the marriage contract: the children.

If the adults were the most important partners to that contract, they'd have no obligation to maintain civility and contact for the continued raising of the children by both mother and father. But they do and they must. And therein is yet more proof that marriage contracts are about children and the adults mere secondary players...

Given that, Obergefell was a de facto illegal contract revision to the demise of the main enjoyers of said contract: children who got both mother and father from marriage.

The Divorce court doesn't 'force' the two divorced parents to cooperate- the court will 'force' a decision on how the child custody will be resolved. The only obligation the court will force on the the parents is that each will be financially responsible in someway.

Note the bold print

Child Custody Basics - FindLaw
In deciding who will have custody, the courts consider various factors. The overriding consideration is always the child's best interests, although that can be hard to determine. Often, the main factor is which parent has been the child's "primary caretaker" (more on this below). If the children are old enough, the courts will take their preference into account in making a custody decision.

Although the "best interest" standard does vary from state to state, some factors are common in the best interest analysis used by the individual states

It's odd how the court doesn't consider the adult's best interest...only the children. Weird for "non players" in the marriage contract dissolution procedure..

And as to non-cooperation not ending up with consequences:

When a co-parent won’t cooperate or stop fighting, it can be positively maddening. Ex-spouses can become immersed in rage, frustration, and a sense of powerlessness when their co-parenting partnership isn’t working. This can leave little energy for either to move ahead with their post-divorce lives.

You cannot force an uncooperative co-parent to stop fighting. You can take them to court and make their choice to misbehave costly and time consuming (for you both). You can do this repeatedly. When Your Ex-spouse and Co-parent Won't Cooperate | HuffPost

 

[WinterBorn]

Sil thinks divorces are only granted when they don't serve the best interest of the child. How many divorces have been denied b/c it was the in the best interest for the child that the parents stayed together?

None because the court's solution for the children's implicit enjoyment of the contract is to force the two divorced parents to cooperate as a team still to raise the children, only in two homes instead of one. The one home having become too hostile for the childrens' best enjoyment.

The point being the court recognizes that even when the two adults involved want nothing whatsoever to do with each other, they HAVE TO cooperate and see each other still to negotiate the most important partners to the marriage contract: the children.

If the adults were the most important partners to that contract, they'd have no obligation to maintain civility and contact for the continued raising of the children by both mother and father. But they do and they must. And therein is yet more proof that marriage contracts are about children and the adults mere secondary players...

Given that, Obergefell was a de facto illegal contract revision to the demise of the main enjoyers of said contract: children who got both mother and father from marriage.

The Divorce court doesn't 'force' the two divorced parents to cooperate- the court will 'force' a decision on how the child custody will be resolved. The only obligation the court will force on the the parents is that each will be financially responsible in someway.

Note the bold print

Child Custody Basics - FindLaw
In deciding who will have custody, the courts consider various factors. The overriding consideration is always the child's best interests, although that can be hard to determine. Often, the main factor is which parent has been the child's "primary caretaker" (more on this below). If the children are old enough, the courts will take their preference into account in making a custody decision.

Although the "best interest" standard does vary from state to state, some factors are common in the best interest analysis used by the individual states

It's odd how the court doesn't consider the adult's best interest...only the children. Weird for "non players" in the marriage contract dissolution procedure..

And as to non-cooperation not ending up with consequences:

When a co-parent won’t cooperate or stop fighting, it can be positively maddening. Ex-spouses can become immersed in rage, frustration, and a sense of powerlessness when their co-parenting partnership isn’t working. This can leave little energy for either to move ahead with their post-divorce lives.

You cannot force an uncooperative co-parent to stop fighting. You can take them to court and make their choice to misbehave costly and time consuming (for you both). You can do this repeatedly. Unfortunately, co-parents focused on being destructive or on hurting their ex can always find new ways to do so. When Your Ex-spouse and Co-parent Won't Cooperate | HuffPost

And if same sex couple do not have children, is it all ok then?

 

[Silhouette]

And if same sex couple do not have children, is it all ok then?

1. a same-sex couple are never the mother and father to children

2. I've covered this before. No, it's not all well, because the overriding marriage contract approved by each state considers the contract for the anticipated arrival of children. If they do not arrive, it doesn't change the terms of the contract. The players for the childrens sake as a legal group affected are still mother and father. Other arrangements can be called something else, but they cannot be called marriage because they don't and cannot ever provide both mother and father to the children the states want raised in these stable homes.

Yes, the phrase "it's all about the children" applies to the marriage contract. If you are married and don't have kids, that doesn't change the contractual terms of marriages in which children do arrive. The few do not set the terms for the many. And in most married homes, children arrive.

 

[WinterBorn]

And if same sex couple do not have children, is it all ok then?

1. a same-sex couple are never the mother and father to children

2. I've covered this before. No, it's not all well, because the overriding marriage contract approved by each state considers the contract for the anticipated arrival of children. If they do not arrive, it doesn't change the terms of the contract. The players for the childrens sake as a legal group affected are still mother and father. Other arrangements can be called something else, but they cannot be called marriage because they don't and cannot ever provide both mother and father to the children the states want raised in these stable homes.

So you spend all that effort arguing that it is all about the children. But when asked about if children are not involved, you answer with "Its all about the children". LMAO!!

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

 

[Unkotare]

Oh Unkatore shows up to help spam.

I heard there was an evacuation order and rushed over to help.

 

[Syriusly]

Note the bold print

Child Custody Basics - FindLaw
In deciding who will have custody, the courts consider various factors. The overriding consideration is always the child's best interests, although that can be hard to determine. Often, the main factor is which parent has been the child's "primary caretaker" (more on this below). If the children are old enough, the courts will take their preference into account in making a custody decision.

Although the "best interest" standard does vary from state to state, some factors are common in the best interest analysis used by the individual states

It's odd how the court doesn't consider the adult's best interest...only the children. Weird for "non players" in the marriage contract dissolution procedure..

Wow- we discuss divorce- and you reference child custody basics.

Here is a basic- child custody law applies whether the parents are married or not. Unmarried parents have to follow the exact same procedures as married parents.

And yes- thankfully for child custody- the children's interest come first- this applies to married couples(seperated), divorced couples, unmarried couples- straight or gay couples.

But we were talking about marriage and divorce- and marriage and divorce law is seperate and different from child custody law.

You and your spouse can divorce- even if it is against the best interest of the children. Marriage and Divorce law doesn't consider the children's best interest- only the marriage or the divorce.

Child custody- which would apply to married- or unmarried- straight- or gay- parents- does rely on the child's best interest.

Two different things. Which you always get wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

And if same sex couple do not have children, is it all ok then?

1. a same-sex couple are never the mother and father to children
.

But the children still often have both a mother and father.

Just like the the children of a single mom being often still have a dad in their life.

Case A: single mom raising 2 kids- Dad lives 100 miles away- sees kids every other weekend.

Case B: Married moms raising 2 kids- Dad lives 100 miles away- sees kids every other weekend.

What is the difference? In case B, the kids have two married parents- with all of the legal protections that provides.

You keep arguing that kids are better off being raised by a single mom- than being raised by two moms- and the only way that works is by arguing that gays are bad.

 

[Syriusly]

And if same sex couple do not have children, is it all ok then?

2. I've covered this before. No, it's not all well, because the overriding marriage contract approved by each state considers the contract for the anticipated arrival of children. If they do not arrive, it doesn't change the terms of the contract. The players for the childrens sake as a legal group affected are still mother and father. Other arrangements can be called something else, but they cannot be called marriage because they don't and cannot ever provide both mother and father to the children the states want raised in these stable homes..

The legal contract- which exist only in your mind.

Case A: My 80 year old uncle who marries his 70 year old wife: State is happy to have them marry(both before and after Obergefell)- there is no contract with the anticipated arrival of children.

Case B: My 80 year old other uncle marries his 70 year old husband: State is happy to have them marry(after Obergefell)- there is no contract with the anticipated arrival of children.

Case C: Wisconsin Man marries his female first cousin. By law- the couple must prove that they cannot procreate together in order to legally marry.

In this case the State specifically spells out that the marriage cannot include children.

This 'legal contract'- like so much you post- is entirely in your mind.