Judge Roy Moore of Alabama Can Win If He Does This: Argues For Alabama's Children

[Silhouette]

How about the next time New York vs Ferber is used to deny someone their Constitutional rights because of what those rights do to children?

Entering into a contract is the right of association. When it hurts children...well...just read New York vs Ferber USSC. New York v. Ferber (1982)

You can't find a single case where Ferber was used to invalidate a marriage contract either. This is why your legal prediction rate is such shit. You cite the law the way you wish it to be instead of citing actual law.

And you can't find a single case about real estate rights on the moon either...yet...because the future is still in the future.. But we can find that New York vs Ferber said Ferber didn't have a right to free speech when it came to selling child pornography. The court's reasoning? If an adult exercising a civil right hurts children either physically or psychologically, the adult can't exercise that right.

Does or does not missing a mother or father for life hurt a child psychologically? Nevermind that lots of children are in single parent homes (the reason marriage was invented to remedy); simply put, without regard to anything whatsoever but itself: do children missing either a mother or father in life experience a greater or same or lesser amount of hardship and peril compared to their peers? (especially think: boys missing their father or girls missing their mother)

It's OK. We both know the answer to that question, and how Ferber applies to it.

******

^^ I notice you haven't said whether or not a child missing a mother or father for life is detrimental to them. Care to weigh in mdk?

 

[Montrovant]

How many cases of marriages or divorces being prevented due to the infancy doctrine can you show us, Sil? Are you going to try to claim that's just something that will happen in the future?

 

[Silhouette]

How many cases of marriages or divorces being prevented due to the infancy doctrine can you show us, Sil? Are you going to try to claim that's just something that will happen in the future?

Just as any case that is being debated lies in the future. Did they change your medication too?

 

[Montrovant]

How many cases of marriages or divorces being prevented due to the infancy doctrine can you show us, Sil? Are you going to try to claim that's just something that will happen in the future?

Just as any case that is being debated lies in the future. Did they change your medication too?

How long have there been legal marriages in the US? How old is the infancy doctrine? Do you think that no marriage or divorce was ever considered to be harmful to the children of the couple involved?

Your arguments don't even have internal logic.

 

[mdk]

How about the next time New York vs Ferber is used to deny someone their Constitutional rights because of what those rights do to children?

Entering into a contract is the right of association. When it hurts children...well...just read New York vs Ferber USSC. New York v. Ferber (1982)

You can't find a single case where Ferber was used to invalidate a marriage contract either. This is why your legal prediction rate is such shit. You cite the law the way you wish it to be instead of citing actual law.

And you can't find a single case about real estate rights on the moon either...yet...because the future is still in the future.. But we can find that New York vs Ferber said Ferber didn't have a right to free speech when it came to selling child pornography. The court's reasoning? If an adult exercising a civil right hurts children either physically or psychologically, the adult can't exercise that right.

Does or does not missing a mother or father for life hurt a child psychologically? Nevermind that lots of children are in single parent homes (the reason marriage was invented to remedy); simply put, without regard to anything whatsoever but itself: do children missing either a mother or father in life experience a greater or same or lesser amount of hardship and peril compared to their peers? (especially think: boys missing their father or girls missing their mother)

It's OK. We both know the answer to that question, and how Ferber applies to it.

******

^^ I notice you haven't said whether or not a child missing a mother or father for life is detrimental to them. Care to weigh in mdk?

We get it already. You believe your legal standards have a long history in this nation and yet you can't offer a single case as proof. That is why you are desperately resorting to spamming again. Too funny.

Children do best when they have loving and nurturing parents. Whether they be gay or straight. Stopping gays from getting married will not suddenly make their children have a mother and a father. Stopping worrying about the happenings of gay families and start worrying about your own fatherless household.

 

[mdk]

How many cases of marriages or divorces being prevented due to the infancy doctrine can you show us, Sil? Are you going to try to claim that's just something that will happen in the future?

Just as any case that is being debated lies in the future. Did they change your medication too?

Good luck citing the Infancy Doctrine as precedent if it has never been used to invalidate a contract between adults. You can't cite your imagination or tea leaves as precedent. I am willing to bet the farm that Moore doesn't even use your Infancy Doctrine babble as a lame excuse to save his job. Even if he doesn't you'll just pretend he did anyway. That's your schtick.

 

[Silhouette]

How long have there been legal marriages in the US? How old is the infancy doctrine? Do you think that no marriage or divorce was ever considered to be harmful to the children of the couple involved?

Your arguments don't even have internal logic.

The infancy doctrine goes back I think to the 15th Century in the Old Country. Divorce in a hostile home is beneficial to children and the states reluctantly grant it. Your arguments smokescreen the fact that you won't answer the question of "is divorcing a child for life with a contractual term from either a mother or father detrimental to that child?".

I'll wait for the smoke to clear for you to answer...

 

[Montrovant]

How long have there been legal marriages in the US? How old is the infancy doctrine? Do you think that no marriage or divorce was ever considered to be harmful to the children of the couple involved?

Your arguments don't even have internal logic.

The infancy doctrine goes back I think to the 15th Century in the Old Country. Divorce in a hostile home is beneficial to children and the states reluctantly grant it. Your arguments smokescreen the fact that you won't answer the question of "is divorcing a child for life with a contractual term from either a mother or father detrimental to that child?".

I'll wait for the smoke to clear for you to answer...

Smokescreen? You cannot give a good answer as to why your legal arguments have never been made. You claim that any contract which harms a child is void based on the infancy doctrine, therefore same sex marriages are void, yet you cannot show a single instance of a marriage being voided because of the infancy doctrine. How can that be true, unless you are arguing that no opposite sex marriage has ever been harmful to a child?

I've answered you over and over again. Same sex marriage does not do what you keep claiming it does. I've given examples of why that is true. If you cannot understand that, it's your own issue.

 

[Silhouette]

I've answered you over and over again. Same sex marriage does not do what you keep claiming it does. I've given examples of why that is true. If you cannot understand that, it's your own issue.

So same sex marriage does not result in a contract that bifurcates children involved of either a father or mother for life? We're going to clear up that point first before we talk further. Yes or no? Every marriage contract is for life at this point in time, so answer with that in mind and not some fantasy "but maybe if.." answer.

 

[Montrovant]

I've answered you over and over again. Same sex marriage does not do what you keep claiming it does. I've given examples of why that is true. If you cannot understand that, it's your own issue.

So same sex marriage does not result in a contract that bifurcates children involved of either a father or mother for life? We're going to clear up that point first before we talk further. Yes or no? Every marriage contract is for life at this point in time, so answer with that in mind and not some fantasy "but maybe if.." answer.

1. Marriage is for life.....unless you decide to get divorced.
2. Marriage is not for the life of the children of the married couple.
3. Marriage contracts in no way prevent a same sex couple from having the biological parent of their child being part of that child's life.
4. Same sex couples have children whether they are married or not.

Once again, same sex marriage does not 'bifurcate children involved of either a father or mother for life'. I don't think you are using the word bifurcate correctly, but even ignoring that, same sex marriage does not contractually prevent a child from having either a mother or father. Not for life, not for any amount of time.

 

[Silhouette]

1. Marriage is for life.....unless you decide to get divorced.
2. Marriage is not for the life of the children of the married couple.
3. Marriage contracts in no way prevent a same sex couple from having the biological parent of their child being part of that child's life.
4. Same sex couples have children whether they are married or not.

1. Agreed, the contract of marriage has terms binding for life.
2. It the parents outlive the child, that contract is for the life of the child. Moreover the lack of a mother or father affects the child for life regardless of the parents dying.
3. Polygamy? Are you serious? The marriage contract only provides two people as parents to the child.
4. Being unmarried is not part of the marriage contract.

 

[Montrovant]

1. Marriage is for life.....unless you decide to get divorced.
2. Marriage is not for the life of the children of the married couple.
3. Marriage contracts in no way prevent a same sex couple from having the biological parent of their child being part of that child's life.
4. Same sex couples have children whether they are married or not.

1. Agreed, the contract of marriage has terms binding for life.
2. It the parents outlive the child, that contract is for the life of the child. Moreover the lack of a mother or father affects the child for life regardless of the parents dying.
3. Polygamy? Are you serious? The marriage contract only provides two people as parents to the child.
4. Being unmarried is not part of the marriage contract.

1. Unless the couple decides to divorce. The point being that marriage does not have to be for life.
2. Yes, the parents can outlive their children. That doesn't mean the marriage contract is for the life of the child. Aren't you always complaining about exceptions being used as an argument, anyway?
3. Who said anything about polygamy? I said that a same sex couple can involve their child's biological parent in that child's life. Is there now a requirement for a parent to be married to be in their child's life?
4. Since same sex couples have children whether married or not, it means that same sex couples being able to marry does not suddenly change the parental status of their children. Those same couples can have a child without getting married and raise that child without parents of both sexes. Therefore your argument about same sex marriage causing children to go without an opposite sex parent is false; you are actually arguing against same sex parents, not same sex marriage.

 

[mdk]

Therefore your argument about same sex marriage causing children to go without an opposite sex parent is false; you are actually arguing against same sex parents, not same sex marriage.

That is what Sil's endgame is actually all about. She doesn't just want to stop gay people from being able to marry...she wants to stop them from raising children as well. Sil would zero problem with the state swooping in and removing them from their parent(s) if they so happen to be gay.

 

[Silhouette]

1. Marriage is for life.....unless you decide to get divorced.
2. Marriage is not for the life of the children of the married couple.
3. Marriage contracts in no way prevent a same sex couple from having the biological parent of their child being part of that child's life.
4. Same sex couples have children whether they are married or not.

1. Agreed, the contract of marriage has terms binding for life.
2. It the parents outlive the child, that contract is for the life of the child. Moreover the lack of a mother or father affects the child for life regardless of the parents dying.
3. Polygamy? Are you serious? The marriage contract only provides two people as parents to the child.
4. Being unmarried is not part of the marriage contract.

1. Unless the couple decides to divorce. The point being that marriage does not have to be for life.

Because a contract could be dissolved does not mean its terms aren't binding for the duration it states. All contracts are assumed to be in full force and effect as to their terms until/unless all parties agree to dissolve them; or a court dissolves them for the parties. All marriage contracts are for life.

Ergo, all marriage contracts between gays are contracts that include legally binding terms that bifurcate any children involved from either a mother or father for life.

So I'll ask you again: Is it harmful to a child to be missing a mother or father for life? Yes or no? Is it harmful for a boy to never know a father? Is it harmful for a girl to never know a mother? Remember, the marriage contract is between just two people (for now, briefly).

 

[Montrovant]

1. Marriage is for life.....unless you decide to get divorced.
2. Marriage is not for the life of the children of the married couple.
3. Marriage contracts in no way prevent a same sex couple from having the biological parent of their child being part of that child's life.
4. Same sex couples have children whether they are married or not.

1. Agreed, the contract of marriage has terms binding for life.
2. It the parents outlive the child, that contract is for the life of the child. Moreover the lack of a mother or father affects the child for life regardless of the parents dying.
3. Polygamy? Are you serious? The marriage contract only provides two people as parents to the child.
4. Being unmarried is not part of the marriage contract.

1. Unless the couple decides to divorce. The point being that marriage does not have to be for life.

Because a contract could be dissolved does not mean its terms aren't binding for the duration it states. All contracts are assumed to be in full force and effect as to their terms until/unless all parties agree to dissolve them; or a court dissolves them for the parties. All marriage contracts are for life.

Ergo, all marriage contracts between gays are contracts that include legally binding terms that bifurcate any children involved from either a mother or father for life.

So I'll ask you again: Is it harmful to a child to be missing a mother or father for life? Yes or no? Is it harmful for a boy to never know a father? Is it harmful for a girl to never know a mother? Remember, the marriage contract is between just two people (for now, briefly).

No. Marriage contract are not for the lives of the children of married couples. Nor are you correctly using the word bifurcate, which is to split or divide into two parts.

Is it harmful for a child to be missing a mother or father for life? That's uncertain. I'll grant the possibility. However, it seems unlikely that it reaches a level of harm requiring legal intervention. It's also almost certainly better, in general, for a child to have two parents than just one, yet we do not require single parents to marry for their children, nor do we stop divorces for the children, etc. Add to that the number of children with no parents who might be adopted by same sex couples and no, I certainly don't think that same sex parents create a harm which would void a contract.

 

[Silhouette]

The marriage contract is for life: a duration nobody can predict ahead of time. Even if it was for a year, gay marriage takes a child away from either a mother or father for that time period; which is detrimental. Life is most of the time much much longer than one year. So your strawman is put to rest.

Now, answer whether or not you think it is a detriment to a child to not have either a mother or father. I'll wait.

 

[Montrovant]

The marriage contract is for life: a duration nobody can predict ahead of time. Even if it was for a year, gay marriage takes a child away from either a mother or father for that time period; which is detrimental. Life is most of the time much much longer than one year. So your strawman is put to rest.

Now, answer whether or not you think it is a detriment to a child to not have either a mother or father. I'll wait.

I just answered you, nitwit.

Why don't you provide a single case in which the marriage of two adults was voided due to the infancy doctrine? We've been waiting on that for a while now.

 

[Syriusly]

Really this all boils down to this:

• Silhouette despises homosexuals and will say anything to hurt them
• And this includes proposing policies which would hurt their children.
• Silhouette is both delusional and a liar

The good thing is that couples in America can get married, regardless of the gender of their spouse, and regardless of Silhouette's hateful opposition.

 

[mdk]

The marriage contract is for life: a duration nobody can predict ahead of time. Even if it was for a year, gay marriage takes a child away from either a mother or father for that time period; which is detrimental. Life is most of the time much much longer than one year. So your strawman is put to rest.

Now, answer whether or not you think it is a detriment to a child to not have either a mother or father. I'll wait.

So how does stopping gays from marrying provide their children with a mother and father?
Your solution doesn't address your problem.

 

[Silhouette]

Are you aware yet that I'm ignoring you mdk?