Clarifying The "Unanimous" Gay Adoption Ruling From SCOTUS Recently: The Fight Heats Up (Poll)

[Silhouette]

(Inspired by a thread here: Midwest Lesbians Beat Son With Hammer & Kicked His Groin Until He Suffered Two Strokes )

Since 90% of you agree that it's important a child have both a mother and father Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life? I thought we could talk about a state that is fighting for the vast-majority opinion that supports that:

The LGBT crew flaunts the recent Ruling on an Alabama-heard "gay adoption" case as a "gay adoption victory unanimous across the Court!" However, that's not what was unanimous. The case was about whether or not a gay adoption in GEORGIA had to be recognized IN ALABAMA or not. The key question of law was not whether or not "gay adoption is a right across all 50 states". It was a question of if an adoption was legal in one state, did another state have to recognize it. It did in no way change the laws of Alabama regarding adoption by gays. It was more of a "familiarity custody battle" between two lesbians than it was a Ruling about "gay rights". It was "custody rights" and "state law recognition across borders" case.

....The decision reverses the lower court’s ruling that the adoption rights granted to a lesbian couple in Georgia had no validity in Alabama... A Georgia court had given parental rights during that time to VL, who has no biological relationship to the children. But when she moved to Alabama and sought visitation rights, her former partner challenged her parental rights and won in front of the state supreme court... Gay adoption rights: ruling overturned by US supreme court in LGBT victory

Gay adoption as it nears the door of the catholic charities adoption agencies is going to be a more and more heated topic. Especially given how many people are actually against gay marriage without realizing it themselves. Polling for this issue needs to get cleaned up because two universes of thought are set to collide and children will be the collateral damage of refusing to acknowledge the obvious....

The numbers of those of you thinking that children need both a mother and father in their lives is running 90% after all. (See link at top) If you thought you were on the bandwagon for gay marriage, the two cognitive realities cannot exist in the same mind. An impasse will occur and a decision must be made. Is it more important that children have both a mother and father in marriage: a set of conditions which for better or worse is a life-sentence for a child? Or, is it more important that adults doing any sexual behaviors they like can marry and use that legal stance to force people to adopt kids to them regardless of whether or not that's a good idea for the children involved? BTW, Your conclusion must include also polygamy; because that's also a sexual orientation behavior that can't be treated unfairly below any other, according to the 14th Amendment.

Adoption is a novel idea. Those poor parentless kids, right? Unless the purpose of the person seeking to provide a child in a home behind closed doors has an ulterior purpose people should be on the lookout for...like oh...say...a demographic known for flaunting deviant sexuality regularly in a public venue as a matter of sober "pride"... in the noonday sun...down mainstreet USA at events regularly held by the thousands across the entire country all year long..

We all agree that pedophilia is a deviant sexuality. And if we were adoption agents or states worried about the fate of the parentless wards in our care, we would, if given the chance, want to have any number of tools at our disposal to identify those people most aggressively apt to discard self-control to the wind and remove limits on what types of sex are "OK" ...especially around children..

If only there was a way we could, as a society, identify a demographic who might have a propensity for inappropriate sexuality around children they hold as a cherished part of their identity? Can anyone help here? Let me know if any of you can think of ways we could easily act to protect children from people who might have those behaviors? Even just subtle cues would be helpful...

Just thought I'd add....that anyone who has reason to believe a child might be in danger is mandated to report that to authorities. State authorities are mandated to investigate any claim of potential or actual child abuse and print the results of that investigation for the public to have access to:

For more information on that: Are States Legally Obligated to Defy Obergefell (2015)? Silhouette vs the 50 States.

Also, this:

Matthew Campea knew it wouldn’t be easy to persuade viewers to welcome pedophiles into their living rooms. Yet I, Pedophile is so riveting and enlightening, you can’t stop watching it. It premieres Thursday at 9 p.m. on CBC’s doc series Firsthand.

Campea’s goal, bound to be controversial, was to bring empathy to troubled men who rarely get any.

“No other part of the population goes through such demonization and witch-hunts,” I, Pedophile dares to empathize: Knelman | Toronto Star

 

[Borillar]

I hold that is is better for the kid to have mother and father in their life. Unfortunately, that is not always possible. There are millions of single parent families, either through death, desertion, or divorce. Should they be allowed to have kids or adopt kids, or does this thread essentially boil down to homophobia?

 

[Silhouette]

From the actual USSC Opinion, the real question of law that was settled in the Alabama "gay adoption" "victory" for LGBTs "across the country". It was about sister states being sovereign states that others must respect. Including Alabama's laws if challenged in Georgia:

With respect to judgments, "the full faith and credit obligation is exacting." Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U. S. 222, 233 (1998). "A final judgment in one State, if rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the subject matter and persons governed by the judgment, qualifies for recognition throughout the land." Ibid. A State may not disregard the judgment of a sister State because it disagrees with the reasoning underlying the judgment or deems it to be wrong on the merits. On the contrary, "the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution precludes any inquiry into the merits of the cause of action, the logic or consistency of the decision, or the validity of the legal principles on which the judgment is based." Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U. S. 457, 462 (1940). - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/15-648.html#sthash.N3p4SUSq.dpuf http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/15-648.html

 

[Silhouette]

I hold that is is better for the kid to have mother and father in their life. Unfortunately, that is not always possible. There are millions of single parent families, either through death, desertion, or divorce. Should they be allowed to have kids or adopt kids, or does this thread essentially boil down to homophobia?

Readers can make that decision. Look at the photos in the OP. It's either "homophobia" around adoptable children or there are valid concerns. The pictures don't lie. It's all there in bright rainbow colors..only one in black and white..

You understand what "NAMBLA" stands for right? "National Man/Boy (sexual) Love Association". That's Harry Hay proudly marching in a gay pride parade in the late 1980s in the OP..

Let me know if you see any clues at all in those photos that might tend more towards authentic adult concerns for the well being of children around gays, or if such a conclusion is merely "blind homophobia"...OK?

 

[Skylar]

Thread 57 in Sil's continuing descent in rainbow colored madness.

 

[Borillar]

I hold that is is better for the kid to have mother and father in their life. Unfortunately, that is not always possible. There are millions of single parent families, either through death, desertion, or divorce. Should they be allowed to have kids or adopt kids, or does this thread essentially boil down to homophobia?

Readers can make that decision. Look at the photos in the OP. It's either "homophobia" around adoptable children or there are valid concerns. The pictures don't lie. It's all there in bright rainbow colors..only one in black and white..

You could show pictures of wild hetero spring break parties too. Doesn't mean that all heteros are wild, crazy, sex crazed getting freaky deaky. The pictures you present likewise show only a small segment of the gay community.

 

[Skylar]

(Inspired by a thread here: Midwest Lesbians Beat Son With Hammer & Kicked His Groin Until He Suffered Two Strokes )

Since 90% of you agree that it's important a child have both a mother and father Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life? I thought we could talk about a state that is fighting for the vast-majority opinion that supports that:

The LGBT crew flaunts the recent Ruling on an Alabama-heard "gay adoption" case as a "gay adoption victory unanimous across the Court!" However, that's not what was unanimous. The case was about whether or not a gay adoption in GEORGIA had to be recognized IN ALABAMA or not. The key question of law was not whether or not "gay adoption is a right across all 50 states". It was a question of if an adoption was legal in one state, did another state have to recognize it. It did in no way change the laws of Alabama regarding adoption by gays. It was more of a "familiarity custody battle" between two lesbians than it was a Ruling about "gay rights". It was "custody rights" and "state law recognition across borders" case.

....The decision reverses the lower court’s ruling that the adoption rights granted to a lesbian couple in Georgia had no validity in Alabama... A Georgia court had given parental rights during that time to VL, who has no biological relationship to the children. But when she moved to Alabama and sought visitation rights, her former partner challenged her parental rights and won in front of the state supreme court... Gay adoption rights: ruling overturned by US supreme court in LGBT victory

A unanimous decision including even the most conservative wings of the court.......decided so summarily that they didn't even need a hearing to come to their decision?

And in *explicit* rejection of your pseudo-legal horseshit about how a child must legally have a mother and a father?

Yeah, definitely an win for gays and lesbians. And a demonstration that your made up 'rules' have no basis in law or the courts. Its just you...citing yourself.

Gay adoption as it nears the door of the catholic charities adoption agencies is going to be a more and more heated topic. Especially given how many people are actually against gay marriage without realizing it themselves. Polling for this issue needs to get cleaned up because two universes of thought are set to collide and children will be the collateral damage of refusing to acknowledge the obvious....

Is this where you cite a message board straw poll that never even mentions marriage as a national poll of opposition to gay marriage?

That's just silly, Silly.

And of course, marriage has nothing to do with the gender of your parents. Nor does denying marriage to same sex parents magically change them into opposite sex parents. All it does is guarantee that their children will never have married parents.

Which hurts children by the hundreds of thousands and help none. Which you know. But really hope we don't.

Adoption is a novel idea. Those poor parentless kids, right? Unless the purpose of the person seeking to provide a child in a home behind closed doors has an ulterior purpose people should be on the lookout for...like oh...say...a demographic known for flaunting deviant sexuality regularly in a public venue as a matter of sober "pride"... in the noonday sun...down mainstreet USA at events regularly held by the thousands across the entire country all year long..

Then by your own logic, Mardi Gras, Carnival and Spring Break mean we can't trust straight people to raise kids.

Bummer.

We all agree that pedophilia is a deviant sexuality. And if we were adoption agents or states worried about the fate of the parentless wards in our care, we would, if given the chance, want to have any number of tools at our disposal to identify those people most aggressively apt to discard self-control to the wind and remove limits on what types of sex are "OK" ...especially around children..

So if someone dances in a parade.......they molest children?

That's particularly dumb, even for you. And of course, you can't possibly back that pseudo-psyche horseshit with the slightest evidence. You're citing your imagination again. And inconsistently. As you never apply the same standards to straights.

But way to try and exploit molested children to further your personal obsession with gay people. Its quite loathsome.

 

[Silhouette]

You could show pictures of wild hetero spring break parties too. Doesn't mean that all heteros are wild, crazy, sex crazed getting freaky deaky. The pictures you present likewise show only a small segment of the gay community.

Except that the people waking up from that one time a year event in areas well known to be off limits to young children for any discerning parents have anything but "pride" about what they did the night or day before.

"Pride" says it all.

 

[Skylar]

I hold that is is better for the kid to have mother and father in their life. Unfortunately, that is not always possible. There are millions of single parent families, either through death, desertion, or divorce. Should they be allowed to have kids or adopt kids, or does this thread essentially boil down to homophobia?

Readers can make that decision. Look at the photos in the OP. It's either "homophobia" around adoptable children or there are valid concerns. The pictures don't lie. It's all there in bright rainbow colors..only one in black and white..

You could show pictures of wild hetero spring break parties too. Doesn't mean that all heteros are wild, crazy, sex crazed getting freaky deaky. The pictures you present likewise show only a small segment of the gay community.

Yes, but those are straight people. Sil's pseudo-psych horseshit never applies to straights. Only gay people.

Why, she's never been able to explain exactly. But I wouldn't think too hard about it. She certainly doesn't.

 

[Skylar]

You could show pictures of wild hetero spring break parties too. Doesn't mean that all heteros are wild, crazy, sex crazed getting freaky deaky. The pictures you present likewise show only a small segment of the gay community.

Except that the people waking up from that one time a year event in areas well known to be off limits to young children for any discerning parents have anything but "pride" about what they did the night or day before.

"Pride" says it all.

And by 'people are waking up' you mean you citing you on the same absurd pseudo-psyche nonsense you made up last year......and nobody gave a shit about then either?

 

[Dhara]

My children have a mother and a father. Neither fit to care for them, but in their lives for visits. And two high functioning moms, full time.

 

[mdk]

Especially given how many people are actually against gay marriage without realizing it themselves.

Most people are really aganist gay marriage but they just don't know it yet. Is that what you tell yourself when you're all alone thinking about queers?

 

[Dhara]

silhouette spends a whole lot more time thinking about LGBT than I do, that's for sure

 

[Skylar]

Especially given how many people are actually against gay marriage without realizing it themselves.

Most people are really aganist gay marriage but they just don't know it yet. Is that what you tell yourself when you're all alone thinking about queers?

I suspect there's plenty of rocking back and forth along with obsessive hair brushing as that mantra is mumbled over and over.

 

[Silhouette]

My children have a mother and a father. Neither fit to care for them, but in their lives for visits. And two high functioning moms, full time.

Should that be the rule of law concerning all children regarding their special rights to the marriage contract? (both a mother and father instead of missing one or the other for life)? Your rare elective exception is nice, but it can't set the rule of law for the many..

 

[Dhara]

My children have a mother and a father. Neither fit to care for them, but in their lives for visits. And two high functioning moms, full time.

Should that be the rule of law concerning all children regarding their special rights to the marriage contract? (both a mother and father instead of missing one or the other for life)? Your rare elective exception is nice, but it can't set the rule of law for the many..

Rule of law ought to be YOU out of MY family. Period.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

My children have a mother and a father. Neither fit to care for them, but in their lives for visits. And two high functioning moms, full time.

What ya high on?

 

[Silhouette]

Rule of law ought to be YOU out of MY family. Period.

So you're in favor of families with children escaping the watchful eyes of others as to the children's welfare. OK. But federal law says differently. Maybe you could challenge it on appeal?

 

[Skylar]

My children have a mother and a father. Neither fit to care for them, but in their lives for visits. And two high functioning moms, full time.

Should that be the rule of law concerning all children regarding their special rights to the marriage contract? (both a mother and father instead of missing one or the other for life)? Your rare elective exception is nice, but it can't set the rule of law for the many..

Children aren't parties to the marriage of their parents. Birth or otherwise.

Remember, you just made that up. And citing your imagination as the law tends to hamper the utility of a legal argument.

 

[Skylar]

Rule of law ought to be YOU out of MY family. Period.

So you're in favor of families with children escaping the watchful eyes of others as to the children's welfare. OK. But federal law says differently. Maybe you could challenge it on appeal?

Federal law doesn't recognize children as being any party to the marriage of parents. With the Supreme Court explicitly contradicting you on the welfare of children in same sex marriages....finding that same sex marriages benefit children, extensively.

You....you really don't want to bring federal law into this. As it just blows up your entire argument.