BREAKING: Australia has overwhelmingly voted YES to legalize gay marriage

[JakeStarkey]

Australia's business and not Sil's.

 

[Silhouette]

Australia's business and not Sil's.

Au contraire. As all adults are mandated guardians of children's welfare (see mandatory reporting laws), it is ALL of our business if a new contract is ratified that legally strips (permanently bans) boys of a father or girls of a mother for life.

That is institutionalized psychological child abuse and as such must be reported and acted on.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Australia's business and not Sil's.

Au contraire. As all adults are mandated guardians of children's welfare (see mandatory reporting laws), it is ALL of our business if a new contract is ratified that legally strips (permanently bans) boys of a father or girls of a mother for life.

That is institutionalized psychological child abuse and as such must be reported and acted on.

We're still waiting for answers to my questions in #56 and 59 that you cant seem to deal with while you're still blathering about contracts .

 

[Silhouette]

We're still waiting for answers to my questions in #56 and 59 that you cant seem to deal with while you're still blathering about contracts .

Who is "we"? Got a gerbil in your...pocket...?

 

[HappyJoy]

We're still waiting for answers to my questions in #56 and 59 that you cant seem to deal with while you're still blathering about contracts .

Who is "we"? Got a gerbil in your...pocket...?

You can add me to the list, so you now have your 'we'.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

We're still waiting for answers to my questions in #56 and 59 that you cant seem to deal with while you're still blathering about contracts .

Who is "we"? Got a gerbil in your...pocket...?

Let the record show that you can't even begin to defend the bovine excrement that you spew. There is no logic to any of it. And this:

That is institutionalized psychological child abuse and as such must be reported and acted on.

is just over the top bat shit crazy

 

[Silhouette]

FACT: Children are implicit anticipated partners to any marriage contract. Just like anticipated profits are intrinsic to any budding business partnership contract. Keywords: "anticipated & intrinsic to the idea of".

FACT: Boys need a father and girls a mother for their best psychological development.

FACT: Marriage was created since time immemorial to provide both genders for boys and girls anticipated-to-arrive & their best psychological development.

FACT: States incentivized traditional marriage precisely to set up those perfect conditions for children; all other arrangements being considered inferior to the gold standard (man/woman, father/mother).

FACT: The Infancy Doctrine says that no contract in which children are implicit beneficiaries may contain terms harmful to them

FACT: So-called "gay marriage" systematically deprives, via contract, children co-beneficiaries of either a father or mother for life, 100% of the time.

ERGO: " Gay marriage" is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Australia's business and not Sil's.

Au contraire. As all adults are mandated guardians of children's welfare (see mandatory reporting laws), it is ALL of our business if a new contract is ratified that legally strips (permanently bans) boys of a father or girls of a mother for life.

That is institutionalized psychological child abuse and as such must be reported and acted on.

Your continued misreading of the law is hilarious.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

FACT: Children are implicit anticipated partners to any marriage contract. Just like anticipated profits are intrinsic to any budding business partnership contract. Keywords: "anticipated & intrinsic to the idea of".

FACT: Boys need a father and girls a mother for their best psychological development.

FACT: Marriage was created since time immemorial to provide both genders for boys and girls anticipated-to-arrive & their best psychological development.

FACT: States incentivized traditional marriage precisely to set up those perfect conditions for children; all other arrangements being considered inferior to the gold standard (man/woman, father/mother).

FACT: The Infancy Doctrine says that no contract in which children are implicit beneficiaries may contain terms harmful to them

FACT: So-called "gay marriage" systematically deprives, via contract, children co-beneficiaries of either a father or mother for life, 100% of the time.

ERGO: " Gay marriage" is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.

What you calling " facts" are nothing more than your bias driven, uninformed, opinions that have been thoroughly debunked by science

Same-sex couples can be effective parents, researchers find - USATODAY.com

A sampling of recent studies of same-sex parenting:

Studies of same-sex parenting

The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families is the world’s largest attempt to study how children raised by same-sex couples compare to children raised by heterosexual couples. According to a preliminary report on the study of 500 children across the country of Australia, these young people are not only thriving, but also have higher rates of family cohesion than other families:

An interim report found there was no statistical difference between children of same-sex couples and the rest of the population on indicators including self-esteem, emotional behaviour and the amount of time spent with parents.
However, children of same-sex couples scored higher than the national average for overall health and family cohesion, measuring how well a family gets along. World’s Largest Study Of Same-Sex Parenting Finds That Children Are Thriving

Children raised by same-sex couples appear to do as well as those raised by parents of both sexes, suggests an international research review that challenges the long-ingrained belief that children need male and female parents for healthy adjustment.

"It's more about the quality of the parenting than the gender of the parents," says Judith Stacey of New York University, co-author of the comprehensive review. It will be published Friday in the Journal of Marriage and Family.

Same-sex couples can be effective parents, researchers find - USATODAY.com

A sampling of recent studies of same-sex parenting:
Studies of same-sex parenting
1997-APR: Three 3 recent studies from the US, Britain and the Netherlands were presented at the national meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development during 1997-APR .

Charlotte Patterson, a research psychologist at the University of Virginia and author of one of the new studies, said "When you look at kids with standard psychological assessments, you can't tell who has a lesbian parent and who has a heterosexual parent...That's really the main finding from these studies." She agreed that the studies to date are relatively few and open to criticism.

There may be indications that children benefit from having two lesbian parents. Fiona Tasker of Birkbeck College in the Netherlands, "...found that the non-biological lesbian parent was usually more involved with the children than are the fathers of heterosexual couples." There is also anecdotal evidence that children of gay or lesbian parents tend to be less prejudiced.

1999-APR: Researcher Fiona Tasker at Birkbeck College, UK, published an article in Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry. A summary reads: "There are an increasing number of children who are being brought up in lesbian-led families. Research on non-clinical samples of children raised in lesbian-led families formed after parental divorce, together with studies of children raised in families planned by a single lesbian mother or lesbian couple, suggest that growing up in a lesbian-led family does not have negative effects on key developmental outcomes. In many ways family life for children growing up in lesbian-led families is similar to that experienced by children in heterosexual families. In other respects there are important distinctions, such as different types of family forms and the impact of social stigma on the family, that may influence how clinicians approach therapeutic work with children in lesbian mother families." 14

2001-APR: Researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California studied sexual orientation and parenting. They reported their findings in the American Sociological Review, a peer-reviewed journal. 1 They :

1. Discussed "...limitations in the definitions, samples and analyses of the studies to date."

2. Examined 21 studies which "almost uniformly reports findings of no notable differences between children reared by heterosexual parents and those reared by lesbian and gay parents..."

There is plenty more where that came from. What do you have? And that infancy doctrine is a real pathetic stretch

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil's writings are very unbalanced and biased on this issue, yes.

 

[Silhouette]

There is plenty more where that came from. What do you have? And that infancy doctrine is a real pathetic stretch

Why does it not surprise me you'd call a legal document protecting children "pathetic"...?

Well, I have this: The Gay Marriage vs Children's Rights Impending Legal-Collision Looms Closer

Enjoy!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Don't be insinuating what you should not be insinuating, Sil. What you have are your opinions, for what they are worth, and nothing else. You have no legal standing recognized in law in any of the states.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

FACT: Children are implicit anticipated partners to any marriage contract. Just like anticipated profits are intrinsic to any budding business partnership contract. Keywords: "anticipated & intrinsic to the idea of".

FACT: Boys need a father and girls a mother for their best psychological development.

FACT: Marriage was created since time immemorial to provide both genders for boys and girls anticipated-to-arrive & their best psychological development.

FACT: States incentivized traditional marriage precisely to set up those perfect conditions for children; all other arrangements being considered inferior to the gold standard (man/woman, father/mother).

FACT: The Infancy Doctrine says that no contract in which children are implicit beneficiaries may contain terms harmful to them

FACT: So-called "gay marriage" systematically deprives, via contract, children co-beneficiaries of either a father or mother for life, 100% of the time.

ERGO: " Gay marriage" is illegal per the Infancy Doctrine.

You don't understand the infancy doctrine. Isn't it curious to you, that out of all of the legal minds in the world, all the exceptional judges, lawyers, scholars, you are the only one that understands the infancy doctrine?

Children are not entitled to a mother, a father or any relative. There is no guarantee of parental love, or parents, or women or men to serve as parents, grand parents or even cousins.

 

[Silhouette]

They are entitled to necessities and that word "necessities" has been argued back and forth. What isn't usually ever argued (and would render the Infancy Doctrine at its core defunct if it was argued successfully) is that a contract could exist that legally bifurcates the child from the presence or even the hope of the presence of a missing mother or father figure FOR LIFE.

I think I know which horse I'd bet on in that race. The Infancy Doctrine is up for legal debate on this point. And so it will be debated on the question of gay adoption. By attorneys on both sides far more learned than I am on the Doctrine.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no such contract, implied or overt, and never has been.

I know you are butt hurt over it, but you are never going to with this.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why does it not surprise me you'd call a legal document protecting children "pathetic"...?

What I am calling pathetic is your bizarre attempted use of the infancy doctrine to say that it makes same sex marriage illegal.

You don't even seem to have the intellectual capacity to realize that banning same sex marriage will not prevent gay folks from having children- so if you're against same sex marriage using children is the wrong argument.

Sure, some gay couples may be prevented from adopting where policy or law does require marriage. But, there are many others ways that gays come to have children in their care. The only thing that prohibiting marriage will only serve to deprive children of having two legal guardians and the economic advantages and social status of having married parents.

Why don't you just be honest and admit that you oppose marriage equality because you are a bigot, instead of shamelessly using children. I wrote the following a while back and it is worth repeating here although I'm sure that it will be lost on you:

Children are Also Victims When Gay and Lesbian Parents and Potential Parents are Discriminated Against - Progressive Patriot (Undated)

I am decidedly weary people of who use children and child rearing issues as pawns in the failed attempts to derail same sex marriage. Those children, who more than anything, need a stable, secure and loving home have a major stake in the issue. Yet, there are those who persist in claiming that children need a mother and a father to the exclusion of all other considerations in order to assail same sex marriage. They will point to bogus and faulty studies that purportedly show that the developmental and emotional outcomes for children of same sex couples is inferior to that of other children. My purpose here to not to debunk those studies-I have done that elsewhere- but rather to address the fact that regardless of what studies show, it is a ludicrous and logically fallacious argument to make against same sex marriage. In plain English, it makes no sense. It's the wrong argument.


Even if the outcomes for children raised in same sex household were in fact different than other children Consider this: If we are to base our policies as to who can marry on who does the best jobs with children, perhaps we should be taking a hard look at certain socio-economic or ethnic groups who produce children who's development and wellbeing can be contrasted to that of other groups . Maybe we should look at inner city vs. suburban parenting outcomes to set marriage policy? Is anyone willing to go there?

And how about this: It is known that Asian American children tend to be higher achievers than others, so maybe should prohibit marriage in order to discourage child rearing by white Americans whose children might not do as well.


The fact is that there are a couple of million kids already in the care of gay people and couples. Many are the biological children of a gay person. Those children can benefit greatly if their parent is able to marry and the non-biological parent is able to adopt as a second parent. There are many economic, legal and social benefits to doing so. Not allowing the adults to marry only serves to punish those children and place them at a disadvantage.

In some cases gay people adopt children through agencies. Yes, the idea that gay people can adopt has been way out ahead of gay marriage. My home state of New Jersey has been allowing joint adoption by same sex couples since 1997, the first state to do so. These are children who had NO parents until these gay folks stepped up. Maybe someone would like to compare the long term outcomes for children who grow up as wards of the state with those raised by same sex couples. Gay people can and will adopt children regardless of whether or not the parent(s) can marry so why deprive the children the advantages-discussed above- of having married parent

Lastly, perhaps the smallest number of children who are in the care of gay and lesbian parents are those who were conceived with the use of surrogacy, or artificial insemination. These are children who, arguably would not have been born at all While there are those who may believe that their souls might have otherwise been born into a more advantageous environment, we really don’t know that, What we do know is that those children are real, and once again, those children will benefit from having married parents.

So, I ask. What do we do, even if the highly questionable assertion that gay parenting is inferior is correct? Do we discourage or even prohibit gays from having children in their care? Or do we adapt policies to support them and maximize their ability to care for those children? Do we enact complex policies regarding which groups will be encouraged and which will be discouraged from having children based on some measure of their parenting ability which will, most assuredly be disputed. Or, do we treat everyone equally.

And lastly, I submit to you that yes, it is possible that the number of additional children living with gay parents will increase as the result of same sex marriage
Some will adopt and some will have children with medical/ scientific intervention. But those children, like countless others in the care of gay couples, will have two legal parents who are married. A tremendous advantage. And those adopted children had no parents and the ones who were conceived with help, would not have been born at all

 

[Silhouette]

What I am calling pathetic is your bizarre attempted use of the infancy doctrine to say that it makes same sex marriage illegal.

You don't even seem to have the intellectual capacity to realize that banning same sex marriage will not prevent gay folks from having children- so if you're against same sex marriage using children is the wrong argument.

Ah but you're neglecting to see that "gay marriage" is a CONTRACT IMPLICITLY INVOLVING STATISTICALLY-ANTICIPATED ARRIVAL OF CHILDREN WHO SHARE IN ITS BENEFITS AND DEFICIENCIES. Therefore if said contract by its intrinsic terms deprives the child of either a mother or father for life, or the psychological wound of promising no mother or father for life, then the Infancy Doctrine applies. It's a Doctrine about CONTRACTS.

A CONTRACT cannot contain terms that deprive a child of, or bind a child away for life from a necessity. See how easy this is to understand?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Well, I have this: The Gay Marriage vs Children's Rights Impending Legal-Collision Looms Closer

What is this crap?? I post scientific studies and you post propaganda, a news story about a law passed in backwards Texas, and some survey that does not say what you claim it says- something that you have been smacked down on before. Interesting how you have not been able to respond to the data that I posted previously

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What I am calling pathetic is your bizarre attempted use of the infancy doctrine to say that it makes same sex marriage illegal.

You don't even seem to have the intellectual capacity to realize that banning same sex marriage will not prevent gay folks from having children- so if you're against same sex marriage using children is the wrong argument.

Ah but you're neglecting to see that "gay marriage" is a CONTRACT IMPLICITLY INVOLVING STATISTICALLY-ANTICIPATED ARRIVAL OF CHILDREN WHO SHARE IN ITS BENEFITS AND DEFICIENCIES. Therefore if said contract by its intrinsic terms deprives the child of either a mother or father for life, or the psychological wound of promising no mother or father for life, then the Infancy Doctrine applies. It's a Doctrine about CONTRACTS.

A CONTRACT cannot contain terms that deprive a child of, or bind a child away for life from a necessity. See how easy this is to understand?

What I am seeing that you're interpretation of the infancy doctrine is made up bullshit and that you are ignoring and cannot mount a rebuttal to the factual and logical argument that I have made showing that NOT allowing same sex couple to marry is what harms children. Again, admit that you don't give a damn about the kids and are just using them to try to punish gays .!!

 

[Silhouette]

What I am seeing that you're interpretation of the infancy doctrine is made up bullshit and that you are ignoring and cannot mount a rebuttal to the factual and logical argument that I have made showing that NOT allowing same sex couple to marry is what harms children. Again, admit that you don't give a damn about the kids and are just using them to try to punish gays .!!

Everything you allege about my motives may (or may not) be true. However that has no bearing on contracts involving infants where a deprivation of a necessity to them (for life) has occurred in a contract in question. Your tangent will not protect your case in a court of law. Do take steps to stay on point.