Dumont v Lyons 2017 : Will Fathers (or Mothers) Be Judicially-Legislated Into Irrelevance?

[Syriusly]

Wow you were able to find studies on LGBT relationships and violence?

I didn't just haphazardly pick the title of this thread...

Frankly the title is irrelevant to all your threads- they could all be titled the same thing:

"Silhoutte bigoted attacks on gays and their children"

 

[Silhouette]

I didn't just haphazardly pick the title of this thread...

Frankly the title is irrelevant to all your threads- they could all be titled the same thing:

"Silhoutte bigoted attacks on gays and their children"

That would be great, wouldn't it, from your point of view. That way people wouldn't read what I have to say about the LGBT CULTure in general.

Yes, I'm opposed to it. That's the side of the debate I've always taken. Your side is in support of it. That's the side you've always taken. But for you, only your side of the debate should have a voice. All others must be squelched. Just like the representation of kids in these family law type cases moving up through the courts. You'd prefer they not have counsel briefing, even when children share (Obergefell, page 15 Opinion 2015) the marriage benefits (and therefore, the contract) with adults as the contract's radical revision is/was proposed through the courts.

Yes, you'd like silence in the "con" voice in the debate, wouldn't you? After all, how can a cult thrive and perpetuate its values in a society of there are "uppity" voices opposing this advancement? You'd like, like Scientology, anyone opposed to be "audited", stalked, harassed and browbeaten into silence. Just as you and your fellows have done to me here for many years now.

Anyone opposes you in their world and your cult members fly off the handle, threaten, malign, browbeat and hint at or file actual lawsuits aimed at silencing speech in opposition.

 

[Syriusly]

I didn't just haphazardly pick the title of this thread...

Frankly the title is irrelevant to all your threads- they could all be titled the same thing:

"Silhoutte bigoted attacks on gays and their children"

Yes, I'm opposed to it.

What are you 'opposed to'?

Equal rights for Americans.

Why are you opposed to equal rights for gay Americans?

Because you are a bigot.

The only difference between you and an anti-semite is that you lie about gays and anti-semites lie about Jews.

 

[Silhouette]

Why are you opposed to equal rights for gay Americans?

.

Because there's no more of a special class above scrutiny called "gay Americans" anymore than there is a special class for another behavior called, for instance, "heroin addict Americans". Both involve addictive behaviors. Behaviors aren't a class of people.

Remember the false premise I've been talking about for years now? You cannot make "doing" a protected class unless that doing is religion. Even then there are limits because a Muslim cannot "do" the act of killing their daughters, even while under the umbrella of Islam.

If you set a precedent that people can get together and do minority behaviors the majority objects to and call those doings "a protected thing" (above the law), then the 14th Amendment demands that ANY group of doings that the majority objects to can also get special protections (be above the law). This is why "LGBT rights" is an unworkable precedent.

 

[Syriusly]

Why are you opposed to equal rights for gay Americans?

.

Because there's no more of a special class above scrutiny called "gay Americans" anymore than there is a special class for another behavior called, for instance, "heroin addict Americans". Both involve addictive behaviors. Behaviors aren't a class of people.

Remember the false premise I've been talking about for years now? You cannot make "doing" a protected class unless that doing is religion. Even then there are limits because a Muslim cannot "do" the act of killing their daughters, even while under the umbrella of Islam.

If you set a precedent that people can get together and do minority behaviors the majority objects to and call those doings "a protected thing" (above the law), then the 14th Amendment demands that ANY group of doings that the majority objects to can also get special protections (be above the law). This is why "LGBT rights" is an unworkable precedent.

I get it- you are bigoted towards gays and lesbians and want to deny them equal rights to everyone else.

We all get that is what all of your threads are about.

 

[Silhouette]

What's a 'gay' or a 'lesbian'? In truth all I know of are men and women. What they do in their bedrooms doesn't give them special legal status.

 

[Syriusly]

What's a 'gay' or a 'lesbian'? In truth all I know of are men and women. What they do in their bedrooms doesn't give them special legal status.

You can't stop starting threads about them. Why do you do that when you don't even know what they are?

 

[Silhouette]

What's a 'gay' or a 'lesbian'? In truth all I know of are men and women. What they do in their bedrooms doesn't give them special legal status.

You can't stop starting threads about them. Why do you do that when you don't even know what they are?

i just told you what they are. I won't stop posting threads about these particular men and women until they stop forcing the majority to give them special rights because of what they do in their bedrooms.

 

[Syriusly]

What's a 'gay' or a 'lesbian'? In truth all I know of are men and women. What they do in their bedrooms doesn't give them special legal status.

You can't stop starting threads about them. Why do you do that when you don't even know what they are?

i just told you what they are. I won't stop posting threads about these particular men and women until they stop forcing the majority to give them special rights because of what they do in their bedrooms.

If you knew- why did you ask?
Here I will remind you- quoting you:

What's a 'gay' or a 'lesbian'?

And by special rights- you mean the people you can't even figure out who they are- being treated exactly equally before the law with everyone else.

Or in other words- you hate gays and want to discriminate against them.

 

[Silhouette]

Behaviors don't have special rights. Only religion is protected. There are no protections for people who adopt a fake identity based on what they DO in their bedroom.

 

[Silhouette]

What's a 'gay' or a 'lesbian'?

And by special rights- you mean the people you can't even figure out who they are- being treated exactly equally before the law with everyone else.

Or in other words- you hate gays and want to discriminate against them.

By special rights I'm talking about rights that elevate LGBT above others; taking away the historical benefits children derived from the marriage contract (right to mother and father both) that they share with kids. What they do in their bedrooms seems to supersede the natural and time-honored derivations of mother and father from marriage to children. Children in contracts with adults have rights too you know. Your cult wants their behavior-as-identity to have rights dominant to kids. And, to ban them from even briefing the courts when those rights are proposed by your cult to be taken away. If that isn't de facto evidence of your cult demanding special rights above others, nothing is. This country (pre Obergefell) used to bend over backwards to listen to and accommodate children in family law cases. After all, families are created for children's benefits primarily. Adults on their own can shack up just fine, using domestic partnership contracts between themselves.

But this gay marriage thing never really was about hospital visitation rights or inheritance between adults; all which can be settled easily with a simple contract. No, Obergefell was about Dumont v Lyon all along, wasn't it? It was about induction; getting at vulnerable kids to "show/teach/imprint them that they don't need a father (or mother) in a normal family". A few years down the line these kids will be registered voters; and the cult dogma will become country-dogma. In all likelihood, the SIX orphans adopted out to the two lesbians who killed them recently were more of an army than a family. Why so many orphans adopted out to lesbians who had a history of beating children? Why indeed. Because the cult is teaching the courts (and family law handlers) 'you'd better not say no to us!' (as they build their future-voter army of inductees).

Your cult used a false premise and ran with it, duping the courts into believing there was no marriage contract, and, if there was, it certainly isn't shared with children! (only Obergefell said it was in its Opinion page 15; and as such, children were required to have their own counsel briefing the courts).

And, about that premise, as I said before: Behaviors don't have special rights. Only religion is protected. There are no protections for regular men and women who adopt a fake identity based on what they DO in their bedroom.

 

[Syriusly]

What's a 'gay' or a 'lesbian'?

And by special rights- you mean the people you can't even figure out who they are- being treated exactly equally before the law with everyone else.

Or in other words- you hate gays and want to discriminate against them.

By special rights I'm talking about rights that elevate LGBT above others;.

Again- you are just talking about your fantasies.

Gay and Lesbian Americans now have most of the same rights as every other American and are treated legally exactly the same.

That is what you call 'special rights'

Or in other words- you hate gays and want to discriminate against them

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Again....pay per post ^^

 

[Silhouette]

Gay and Lesbian Americans now have most of the same rights as every other American and are treated legally exactly the same.

That is what you call 'special rights'

Or in other words- you hate gays and want to discriminate against them

I said this to Clayton on another thread and I'll repeat it here:

Where in the US Constitution does it say "just some behaviors people do are protected from majority rule while all others are not" (outside religion)? Aren't all local ordinances concerning human behaviors ultimately? And, if some behaviors are protected from majority rule outside religion, how is it that this conforms to the 14th Amendment on equality of rights and privileges for ALL (not just a few favorites)? Remember, we're talking about behaviors that the majority finds repugnant, all of them, except religion.

We're talking about ordinary men and women and what they DO in their bedrooms. There is no such thing as a 'gay American', anymore than there is a 'heroin addict American' or 'serial killer American' or 'cleptomaniac-American'. All are behaviors repugnant to the majority and subject to its rule. Or else the spirit of the 14th Amendment is being defied totally, and brazenly by playing favorites in minority behaviors that bucked the system by (subjectively, and preferentially) assigning themselves 'behavior as identity'. Which is absurd from a legal standpoint. It's unworkable. The 14th by its very nature doesn't play favorites.

 

[Syriusly]

Gay and Lesbian Americans now have most of the same rights as every other American and are treated legally exactly the same.

That is what you call 'special rights'

Or in other words- you hate gays and want to discriminate against them

I said this to Clayton on another thread and I'll repeat it here:

Where in the US Constitution does it say "just some behaviors people do are protected from majority rule while all others are not" .

Oh I have seen you post that straw man comment dozens- maybe hundreds of times.

And it is just your justification for wanting to discriminate against gays and lesbians and their children.

Gay and Lesbian Americans now have most of the same rights as every other American and are treated legally exactly the same.

That is what you call 'special rights'

Or in other words- you hate gays and want to discriminate against them

 

[Silhouette]

Where in the US Constitution does it say "just some behaviors people do are protected from majority rule while all others are not" .

Oh I have seen you post that straw man comment dozens- maybe hundreds of times.

A flawed premise leading to unworkable case law via the 14th's insistence on equality isn't 'a strawman'. It is THE essence of this and many other cases surrounding LGBT "rights". I'll repeat this until it sinks in. LGBT are BEHAVIORS. And, they are minority BEHAVIORS that the majority objected to and regulated in the various states, as the US Constitution empowered those states to self-govern up until 2015, when the USSC decided to rip the power of Amending away from the Legislature to promote just a limited few of its favorite minority behaviors to be free from regulation... *drum roll* WHILE OTHER MINORITY BEHAVIORS SUCH AS 'DRUG-ADDICT AMERICANS' OR 'CLEPTOMANIAC AMERICANS' OR 'SERIAL KILLER AMERICANS' REMAIN UNDER REGULATION OF THE MAJORITY.

Now I know you know how the 14th Amendment works. I know you know that it cannot arbitrarily discriminate once a class has inclusion. How is it then that JUST SOME but NOT OTHER minority behaviors get protection from majority regulation under the umbrella of the 14th? Is LGBT a religion? Is LGBT a race? Is LGBT a nationality? Is LGBT a third gender? Or is LGBT just regular men and women doing odd things with their bodies in their bedrooms and elsewhere?

So, dear, the flawed premise is not a strawman. It is the bedrock of the legal objection to Dumont and Obergefell, and Hively v Ivy Tech and all the others. Made worse in Dumont is the proposition of making mothers or fathers newly irrelevant in marriage when it comes to adoption. We best look at the first stepping stone to Dumont (Obergefell) to understand how a false premise, and not inviting one of the parties to the contract revision (Obergefell) is flawed legal process, or else Dumont will usher in a new cascading train wreck of unworkable and unconstitutional case law.

That all being said, sad news in the related topic. The lesbians who adopted 6 kids and killed them when investigated by CWS & Sheriff. They found one of the girls washed up, bringing the official death toll to 4 of the 6 kids with 2 still missing......

 

[Syriusly]

Where in the US Constitution does it say "just some behaviors people do are protected from majority rule while all others are not" .

Oh I have seen you post that straw man comment dozens- maybe hundreds of times.

A flawed premise leading to unworkable case law via the 14th's insistence on equality isn't 'a strawman'...

It is the same strawman you drag out regularly- the poor thing must be really worn down.

Just shows how pissed off you are that the Supreme Court has stopped you from passing laws to deny contraception to Americans and the Supreme Court has stopped you from telling Americans that Big Brother will arrest you if you have the wrong kind of sex in your bedroom.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ That dies not refute the points I made. It's a dodge. Because you know the courts erred & you're desperate for a diversion. Speaking of strawman. Yours was pronounced dead years ago.

 

[Syriusly]

^^ That dies not refute the points I made. It's a dodge. Because you know the courts erred & you're desperate for a diversion. Speaking of strawman. Yours was pronounced dead years ago.

Forget how to use the post reply button again?

LOL- you have no 'points' other than your usual "Gays bad- waaah we can't discriminate against them anymore"

 

[Silhouette]

As I have repeatedly pointed out and you repeatedly ignore- that is another of your bald faced lies.

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent.

Except a marriage contract between lesbians or gays. Their expressed terms manifestly banish either a father or mother from the home for life.