Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Silhouette, Jan 25, 2015.
And once again- that is entirely your fantasy.
Obergefell and his partner didn't even have children.
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?
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.
Note the bold print
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:
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.
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.
I heard there was an evacuation order and rushed over to help.
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.
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.
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.
Separate names with a comma.