Conservative State Challenge: "The Child-Protective/Fiscal-Future Marriage Act"

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

What do you mean, "their own" children? It takes two human beings to create one child and they can't be the same sex. So are we talking about sperm banks? Surrogacy? It's all different flavors of the same immoral scheme to raise a child while deliberately depriving them of a mother and a father. There is no clearer example of selfishness than to put one's whims above the needs and rights of children. You people are just evil.

Here is a photo of Bob and Dolores Hope with their own children.

View attachment 50631

All adopted.

Please tell me you aren't one of those people who tells adoptive parents that they aren't 'real parents' or that its too bad that they can't have 'real children'?

Adoptive mother father couples are real parents. All other combinations are just sick people sucking an innocent child into their demonic delusions.

Yeah- these 'sick' people who adopt children abandoned by their biological parents. What demonic delusions leads them to want to love children who have been abandoned by their own parents simply because they were handicapped? Clearly you think that these children should only have a mother and father- or no parents at all- anything else is 'demonic'

Children would be better off feral, raised by wolves, than to be raised by homos.

The children of gays overwhelmingly disagree. As does the court. As does the law.

Truth isn't a matter of public consensus. I don't care if godless judges, perverts like yourself, or Mr. Hanky the Christmas Poo approves of it. None of you have the power to turn wrong into right.

 

[Syriusly]

There are only the partners in a marriage contract.

So, children are in fact implicitly part of the marriage contract. .

Again you are just making crap up.

A marriage contract not only does not require children, it doesn't even require an intent to have children. 80 year olds are welcome to marry each other in America even though they will never procreate together. First cousins in Wisconsin are welcome to marry each other- if they can show they will not have children.

Denying a gay couple marriage benefits no child.
Denying marriage to a gay couple who have kids only denies those kids married parents- and therefore harms those children.

Now tell us your plan to remove children from their parents who happen to be gay- in order to protect the children.

 

[Syriusly]

No, not just like an oil company.

The childen are not little oil derricks.

No, the children are the pristine environment to be wrecked by the "parties to the land in question" bleeding their lifestyle over into the estuaries and fresh water of the People.

You mean children like these- abandoned by their own mothers and fathers- and being given a loving home by a couple who happen to be gay?

 

[Syriusly]

No, not just like an oil company.

The childen are not little oil derricks.

No, the children are the pristine environment to be wrecked by the "parties to the land in question" bleeding their lifestyle over into the estuaries and fresh water of the People.

At least your not being melodramatic or anything.

Not at all, that's your venue. I'm being illustrative for those having trouble grasping how other people can be implied parties to a contract or a holding...

Your just making crap up- again.

 

[Skylar]

Here is a photo of Bob and Dolores Hope with their own children.

View attachment 50631

All adopted.

Please tell me you aren't one of those people who tells adoptive parents that they aren't 'real parents' or that its too bad that they can't have 'real children'?

Adoptive mother father couples are real parents. All other combinations are just sick people sucking an innocent child into their demonic delusions.

Yeah- these 'sick' people who adopt children abandoned by their biological parents. What demonic delusions leads them to want to love children who have been abandoned by their own parents simply because they were handicapped? Clearly you think that these children should only have a mother and father- or no parents at all- anything else is 'demonic'

Children would be better off feral, raised by wolves, than to be raised by homos.

The children of gays overwhelmingly disagree. As does the court. As does the law.

Truth isn't a matter of public consensus. I don't care if godless judges, perverts like yourself, or Mr. Hanky the Christmas Poo approves of it. None of you have the power to turn wrong into right.

Is this where you claim to speak for God again, and then use the 'appeal to authority' fallacy?

You don't define good and evil. And you can't factually establish the existence of the authority you claim does. Leaving you with a circular belief that you must be right....because you believe you are.

 

[Syriusly]

Here is a photo of Bob and Dolores Hope with their own children.

View attachment 50631

All adopted.

Please tell me you aren't one of those people who tells adoptive parents that they aren't 'real parents' or that its too bad that they can't have 'real children'?

Adoptive mother father couples are real parents. All other combinations are just sick people sucking an innocent child into their demonic delusions.

Yeah- these 'sick' people who adopt children abandoned by their biological parents. What demonic delusions leads them to want to love children who have been abandoned by their own parents simply because they were handicapped? Clearly you think that these children should only have a mother and father- or no parents at all- anything else is 'demonic'

Children would be better off feral, raised by wolves, than to be raised by homos.

The children of gays overwhelmingly disagree. As does the court. As does the law.

Truth isn't a matter of public consensus. I don't care if godless judges, perverts like yourself, or Mr. Hanky the Christmas Poo approves of it. None of you have the power to turn wrong into right.

The truth is that wolves eat children.

The truth is that the men in the photograph have done the right thing.
After the biological parents of those children did the wrong thing.

And truth is that Silhouette wants to call these men pedophiles- for doing what no mother and father was willing to do.

The truth is that Silhouette lies in order to attack homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

Sil, you don't give a shit about chidlren. You care only about hurting gays and lesbians. As denying marriage to same sex parents doensn't mean that their children have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that they never have marri3ed parents.

Which hurts those children and helps no child. Your proposal does nothing you're demanding be done.

I ask again, are you insisting that gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to raise their own children? Because that seems to be what you're arguing.

What do you mean, "their own" children? It takes two human beings to create one child and they can't be the same sex. So are we talking about sperm banks? Surrogacy? It's all different flavors of the same immoral scheme to raise a child while deliberately depriving them of a mother and a father. There is no clearer example of selfishness than to put one's whims above the needs and rights of children. You people are just evil.

Here is a photo of Bob and Dolores Hope with their own children.

View attachment 50631

All adopted.

Please tell me you aren't one of those people who tells adoptive parents that they aren't 'real parents' or that its too bad that they can't have 'real children'?

Adoptive mother father couples are real parents. All other combinations are just sick people sucking an innocent child into their demonic delusions.

Yeah- these 'sick' people who adopt children abandoned by their biological parents. What demonic delusions leads them to want to love children who have been abandoned by their own parents simply because they were handicapped? Clearly you think that these children should only have a mother and father- or no parents at all- anything else is 'demonic'

Children would be better off feral, raised by wolves, than to be raised by homos.

So you are saying you prefer that handicapped children abandoned by their mothers and fathers be eaten by wolves- a sort of retroactive infanticide.

Tell us the mental image in your mind when you pictured one of these boys 'feral' abandoned on a meadow in Idaho, waiting for wolves to come 'raise' them

Which boy do you imagine the wolves would prefer to eat first- and which parts- since the boys are helpless, they likely would be eaten while still alive.

How incredibly Christian of you.

 

[Silhouette]

A marriage contract not only does not require children, it doesn't even require an intent to have children. 80 year olds are welcome to marry each other in America even though they will never procreate together. First cousins in Wisconsin are welcome to marry each other- if they can show they will not have children.

The reason Wisconsin requires the "show you will have no natural children" law is because they know the marriage contract includes children and such close blood relations procreating would harm the offspring. The offspring. The children. The law isn't about the adults, it's about protecting children.

A marriage contract does not require children but it has to be constructed as if they would appear, since children is why societies have marriage. And as such, children are implied parties to the contract. Contract law was violated when they were barred from the discussion last Spring. So, mistrial and redo. You shouldn't fear that after all Syriusly because you of all people would want children to have a voice in what is best for themselves on this quesition, right? You of all people should be advocating that they at least got to speak at the table on a contract so vitally connected to them that was up for revision, yes?

80 year olds are potential foster parents or grandparents. Sterile heteros are potential moms and dads too. This is all about moms and dads with children as an inseperable concept from marriage since its inception thousands of years ago.

 

[Syriusly]

A marriage contract not only does not require children, it doesn't even require an intent to have children. 80 year olds are welcome to marry each other in America even though they will never procreate together. First cousins in Wisconsin are welcome to marry each other- if they can show they will not have children.

The reason Wisconsin requires the "show you will have no natural children" law is because they know the marriage contract includes children and such close blood relations procreating would harm the offspring. The offspring. The children. The law isn't about the adults, it's about protecting children..

LOL- Wisconsin law says that the only way First cousins can marry is if they prove that they cannot have children.

This was cited by the courts specifically as an example of how Wisconsin does not link children to marriage..

There is no requirement- or expectation that marriage will result in children.

 

[Syriusly]

A marriage contract not only does not require children, it doesn't even require an intent to have children. 80 year olds are welcome to marry each other in America even though they will never procreate together. First cousins in Wisconsin are welcome to marry each other- if they can show they will not have children.

A marriage contract does not require children but it has to be constructed as if they would appear, since children is why societies have marriage.

If that was the case- Wisconsin could simply make marriage between first cousins illegal. Many other states do.

Clearly marriage does not have to be constructed as if children will appear- since states like Wisconsin not only have no expectation of children in a marriage- but require some couples not to have children before they are allowed to legally marry.

f that was the case- Wisconsin could simply make marriage between first cousins illegal. Many other states do.

Clearly marriage does not have to be constructed as if children will appear- since states like Wisconsin not only have no expectation of children in a marriage- but require some couples not to have children before they are allowed to legally marry.

 

[Syriusly]

A marriage contract not only does not require children, it doesn't even require an intent to have children. 80 year olds are welcome to marry each other in America even though they will never procreate together. First cousins in Wisconsin are welcome to marry each other- if they can show they will not have children.

The reason Wisconsin requires the "show you will have no natural children" law is because they know the marriage contract includes children and such close blood relations procreating would harm the offspring. The offspring. The children. The law isn't about the adults, it's about protecting children.

A marriage contract does not require children but it has to be constructed as if they would appear, since children is why societies have marriage. And as such, children are implied parties to the contract. Contract law was violated when they were barred from the discussion last Spring. So, mistrial and redo. You shouldn't fear that after all Syriusly because you of all people would want children to have a voice in what is best for themselves on this quesition, right? You of all people should be advocating that they at least got to speak at the table on a contract so vitally connected to them that was up for revision, yes?

80 year olds are potential foster parents or grandparents. Sterile heteros are potential moms and dads too. This is all about moms and dads with children as an inseperable concept from marriage since its inception thousands of years ago.

Sterile homosexuals are potential moms and dads too.

Like these two men

There is no requirement that they have children in order to marry- nor were they married when they started having children.

They choose to become parents.

Preventing them from marrying only ensures that their children do not have married parents.

It doesn't help a single child.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

What do you mean, "their own" children? It takes two human beings to create one child and they can't be the same sex. So are we talking about sperm banks? Surrogacy? It's all different flavors of the same immoral scheme to raise a child while deliberately depriving them of a mother and a father. There is no clearer example of selfishness than to put one's whims above the needs and rights of children. You people are just evil.

Here is a photo of Bob and Dolores Hope with their own children.

View attachment 50631

All adopted.

Please tell me you aren't one of those people who tells adoptive parents that they aren't 'real parents' or that its too bad that they can't have 'real children'?

Adoptive mother father couples are real parents. All other combinations are just sick people sucking an innocent child into their demonic delusions.

Yeah- these 'sick' people who adopt children abandoned by their biological parents. What demonic delusions leads them to want to love children who have been abandoned by their own parents simply because they were handicapped? Clearly you think that these children should only have a mother and father- or no parents at all- anything else is 'demonic'

Children would be better off feral, raised by wolves, than to be raised by homos.

So you are saying you prefer that handicapped children abandoned by their mothers and fathers be eaten by wolves- a sort of retroactive infanticide.

Tell us the mental image in your mind when you pictured one of these boys 'feral' abandoned on a meadow in Idaho, waiting for wolves to come 'raise' them

Which boy do you imagine the wolves would prefer to eat first- and which parts- since the boys are helpless, they likely would be eaten while still alive.

How incredibly Christian of you.

I said raised by wolves you lying sack of shit. What you just did was unforgivable. You're on ignore.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no requirement that they have children in order to marry- nor were they married when they started having children..

You know...there's no requirement that anyone getting a driver's license must actually drive. Yet the state anticipates that that person will eventually drive, so they require certain standards be met and passed in order to insure the safety of everyone who implicitly shares the road with them.

Marriage is about children. The contract is about the anticipation of children. Therefore, children should have had a seat at the revision table. They didn't. They were actively shut out. Doesn't a person being shut out of a conversation about something that affects them deeply bother you Syriusly?

 

[Skylar]

A marriage contract does not require children but it has to be constructed as if they would appear, since children is why societies have marriage. And as such, children are implied parties to the contract.

No, they're not. Not a single state recognizes children as 'implied partners' in a marriage. Nor does any legal precedent. You've made up the pseudo-legal gibberish based on nothing but your imagination. And your imagination has no legal relevance.

As demonstrated by your perfect record of failure in predicting any legal outcome. The reason for this is simple: you replace the actual law and actual precedent with whatever pseudo-legal nonsense you invent. And then expect the courts to abide your invention.....rather than the law and precedent. Which they never do.

The standards that you insist we apply to gays do not exist. Rendering them irrelevant to any law, precedent or legal outcome.

Worse, your proposal has nothing to do with the issue you seek to remedy. As denying marriage to gay parents doesn't make them opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents. Which harms those children as the courts have found repeatedly.

Leaving you without cause to deny them marriage. As the 'harm' you speak of is in no way remedied or effected by the denial of marriage to gays. Instead, your proposal if enacted produces the very harm to children that you claim your proposal is designed to remedy.

Meaning your proposal is worse than useless. As it offers no remedy. And literally causes the harm it proposes to prevent. All of which you know. And none of which you care about. As you'll happily harm any number of children if it lets you hurt gay people.

No thank you.

 

[Skylar]

There is no requirement that they have children in order to marry- nor were they married when they started having children..

You know...there's no requirement that anyone getting a driver's license must actually drive. Yet the state anticipates that that person will eventually drive, so they require certain standards be met and passed in order to insure the safety of everyone who implicitly shares the road with them.

You're insisting that if they won't drive....they can't get a license. And no state applies such a restriction. Similarly, you're insisting that if they can't have children within their union, they can't get married. Not state does this either.

The standard you insist we apply does not exist. Not in your analogy. Not in reality.

There are many purposes to marriage. You insist there is only one. And you're obviously wrong. Your 'requirements' don't exist. Nor is anyone limited to your 'sole purpose'. Yet your entire argument is predicated on the application of your imaginary requirements and your imaginary 'sole' purpose.

Nope. This is why you're always wrong. Because no one gives a shit what imaginary nonsense you make up. Not here and certainly not the in the courts.

 

[Syriusly]

Here is a photo of Bob and Dolores Hope with their own children.

View attachment 50631

All adopted.

Please tell me you aren't one of those people who tells adoptive parents that they aren't 'real parents' or that its too bad that they can't have 'real children'?

Adoptive mother father couples are real parents. All other combinations are just sick people sucking an innocent child into their demonic delusions.

Yeah- these 'sick' people who adopt children abandoned by their biological parents. What demonic delusions leads them to want to love children who have been abandoned by their own parents simply because they were handicapped? Clearly you think that these children should only have a mother and father- or no parents at all- anything else is 'demonic'

Children would be better off feral, raised by wolves, than to be raised by homos.

So you are saying you prefer that handicapped children abandoned by their mothers and fathers be eaten by wolves- a sort of retroactive infanticide.

Tell us the mental image in your mind when you pictured one of these boys 'feral' abandoned on a meadow in Idaho, waiting for wolves to come 'raise' them

Which boy do you imagine the wolves would prefer to eat first- and which parts- since the boys are helpless, they likely would be eaten while still alive.

How incredibly Christian of you.

I said raised by wolves you lying sack of shit. What you just did was unforgivable. You're on ignore.

So you really believe that wolves would 'raise' these children- not eat them?

What you have said in this thread is your usual stupidity.

Why am I not surprised that you are running away?

 

[Syriusly]

There is no requirement that they have children in order to marry- nor were they married when they started having children..

You know...there's no requirement that anyone getting a driver's license must actually drive. Yet the state anticipates that that person will eventually drive, so they require certain standards be met and passed in order to insure the safety of everyone who implicitly shares the road with them.

Yet states don't actually issue driver's licenses to people that they don't allow to drive. They issue ID cards instead.

Here is your fundamental lie.

A driver's license is issued to permit a person to drive.
A marriage license is issued to a couple to marry.

A marriage license is not a license to have children- just as a State ID is not a license to drive.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no requirement that they have children in order to marry- nor were they married when they started having children..

Marriage is about children. The contract is about the anticipation of children. Therefore, children should have had a seat at the revision table. They didn't. They were actively shut out. Doesn't a person being shut out of a conversation about something that affects them deeply bother you Syriusly?

• You claim marriage is about children- but you can provide nothing but your biased opinion to support your claim
• Children should have had a seat at the 'revision' table? Were they at the seat when divorce was legalized? Were they 'at the seat' when courts said that States could not ban a parent who owes child support from marrying? No. Children have never been 'at the seat' in regards to any of the many changes that have occurred regarding marriage laws.
• Every year Congress votes on hundreds of issues that affect children- from food stamps to daycare- and children are 'shut out of that conversation' because they can't vote. Do you think 5 year old children should be able to vote?

Now back to why you want harm to come to children

As mentioned before- no child benefits from denying a gay couple from marrying. Denying gay couples from marrying does not magically give them a mother and father.

However denying gay parents the right to marry only prevents their children from having married children- and that causes them harm.

Why do you want to harm the children of homosexual couples?

Is it only as another way to harm homosexuals.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Worse, your proposal has nothing to do with the issue you seek to remedy. As denying marriage to gay parents doesn't make them opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents. Which harms those children as the courts have found repeatedly.

They don't have married parents anyway.

By definition, marriage always has been, and always will be, between a man and a woman. Calling a joining of two men or two women a “marriage” does not make a marriage. Even trying to enact recognition of such as a “marriage” by law doesn't make it so. All it does is to make a sick, disgusting mockery of marriage.

And passing this off to children as an acceptable substitute for a real set of parents with a real marriage, is fraud and abuse against those children.

You cannot advocate this sickness, this madness and then be left with any credible basis on which to claim any sincere concern for the wellbeing of children. Your is the position that attacks children, that exploits them to their own detriment, in order to promote a willfully evil and perverted agenda.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

'There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution.'

Incorrect.

The right to marry can be found here in the Constitution:

Zablocki v. Redhail, Turner v. Safley,

14 Supreme Court Cases

False: Supreme Court Findings Are not in the US Constitution.