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

[Silhouette]

A big one to children. Are you really that daft?

does it? 1. how about the kids of single parents? does it make a difference to them? 2. what should we do.with the people that have kids out of wedlock? force them to marry? 3. what about those who divorce? i guess divorce wouldn't be an option anymore, even for those without kids, since the unborn kods are supposedly part of the contract...

1. Single parents offer hope of a mother or father coming along. In contrast, "gay marriage" removes that hope for life and binds the child to the detrimental void; missing either a mother or father forever. Single hetero dating can at least provide them with hope.

2. People who have kids out of wedlock don't get the benefits of marriage and they still seek the opposite gender in their life. Just the seeking of the opposite gender validates its existence in the child's mind and gives them a boost in esteem. Especially if theirs is the same gender as the missing one in the home. "Gay marriage" is a living daily expression to the child of the missing gender "your gender (you, in a child's mind) does not matter, even when it comes to sex. The functioning adult world could completely do without your gender (you)" That is the unspoken daily message to the child. From the adult chatter about their disdain for the opposite gender (when they think the child isn't listening), it is often also a spoken daily lesson in many gay homes as well. This is psychologically damaging to the child.

3. Divorce, again, takes the children aside and gives them basically their own hearing, seeing to it that they retain many of the benefits of the marriage that no longer functions to make them happy. Those benefits? Contact with both the mother and father on a regular basis. In contrast, that contact is always missing in either marriage or divorce for a child. Also, divorce proves that children are legally viewed as parties to the marriage benefits.

 

[Skylar]

A big one to children. Are you really that daft?

does it? 1. how about the kids of single parents? does it make a difference to them? 2. what should we do.with the people that have kids out of wedlock? force them to marry? 3. what about those who divorce? i guess divorce wouldn't be an option anymore, even for those without kids, since the unborn kods are supposedly part of the contract...

1. Single parents offer hope of a mother or father coming along. In contrast, "gay marriage" removes that hope for life and binds the child to the detrimental void; missing either a mother or father forever. Single hetero dating can at least provide them with hope.

"Hope" is neither a parent of the opposite sex or a second parent.

By your own standard, Single Parenting is far, far more harmful than same sex parenting.

2. People who have kids out of wedlock don't get the benefits of marriage and they still seek the opposite gender in their life.

Then you recognize the benefits of having married parents. How does a child of same sex parents benefit when you *deny* their parents marriage?

Spoiler Alert: They don't.

By your own standards, denial of same sex marriage hurts children. While helping none.

 

[Syriusly]

You can say that all day, but the thing is, a woman can marry a convicted pedophile, and the state or the child can't say jack shit about it.

Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. Yeah, I guess little Billy can get all passive aggressive and refuse to call the new girlfriend Mom, but he really doesn't have any legal standing to do anything about it.

If that's the case then how is Obergefell going to deny polyamorists from marrying?

Obergefell has no more to do with polygamous marriage than Loving does.

Polygamists either have a case- or they don't have a case.

Why do you think polygamous marriage should not be legal?

Since you are unable to answer the question- that is your answer. IF the state is as unable to explain why polygamous marriage should be illegal as you think it should be- the state would lose.

But then again- every lawyer is smarter than you are.

 

[Syriusly]

A big one to children. Are you really that daft?

does it? 1. how about the kids of single parents? does it make a difference to them? 2. what should we do.with the people that have kids out of wedlock? force them to marry? 3. what about those who divorce? i guess divorce wouldn't be an option anymore, even for those without kids, since the unborn kods are supposedly part of the contract...

1. Single parents offer hope of a mother or father coming along. In contrast, "gay marriage" removes that hope for life and binds the child to the detrimental void; missing either a mother or father forever. Single hetero dating can at least provide them with hope. .

So having a mother and father is not the issue- all kids need are the hope that they eventually have a mother and father.

So kids waiting for adoption- by your bizarre standard- are as well off as kids being raised by family- since they have the 'hope' of a mother and father.

It is telling that virtually no one but you has offered this bizarre homophobic objection.

 

[Syriusly]

[ Also, divorce proves that children are legally viewed as parties to the marriage benefits.

No.

No more than it proves the house is a party to the marriage benefits.

The court settles child custody disputes whether a couple is married or not.

 

[Silhouette]

[ Also, divorce proves that children are legally viewed as parties to the marriage benefits.

No.

No more than it proves the house is a party to the marriage benefits.

The court settles child custody disputes whether a couple is married or not.

A house doesn't get split custody between divorcees...not usually. Children are regarded NOT as chattel. It is THEIR interests that determine custody and child support; not the interests of the parents.

Try again, liar.

 

[ogibillm]

[ Also, divorce proves that children are legally viewed as parties to the marriage benefits.

No.

No more than it proves the house is a party to the marriage benefits.

The court settles child custody disputes whether a couple is married or not.

A house doesn't get split custody between divorcees...not usually. Children are regarded NOT as chattel. It is THEIR interests that determine custody and child support; not the interests of the parents.

Try again, liar.

custody and child support and the interests of the child are all decided by courts outside of divorces as well.

in other words deciding custody and child support issues has nothing to do with marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

[ Also, divorce proves that children are legally viewed as parties to the marriage benefits.

No.

No more than it proves the house is a party to the marriage benefits.

The court settles child custody disputes whether a couple is married or not.

A house doesn't get split custody between divorcees...not usually. Children are regarded NOT as chattel. It is THEIR interests that determine custody and child support; not the interests of the parents.

Try again, liar.

No- it is amusing to watch you try again.

Actually there is no reason a house couldn't get split custody.

Remember- a judge decides on who gets custody of the house- and who get custody of the children.

According to you- that makes the house and children equally partners in the marriage- along of course with the grandparents...and maybe the neighbors....

 

[Silhouette]

custody and child support and the interests of the child are all decided by courts outside of divorces as well.

in other words deciding custody and child support issues has nothing to do with marriage.

Why? If the children were mere chattel when a marriage broke up, why wouldn't the lawyers just be able to strike an agreement? The husband could trade the house maybe for the wife getting the kids? Or the car? Or the club membership? Why do the courts get involved at all when it comes to custody of children? Why? Because when a marriage ends, the court wants to make sure their RIGHTS from marriage to both their mother and father are preserved.

 

[Syriusly]

custody and child support and the interests of the child are all decided by courts outside of divorces as well.

in other words deciding custody and child support issues has nothing to do with marriage.

Why? If the children were mere chattel when a marriage broke up, why wouldn't the lawyers just be able to strike an agreement? The husband could trade the house maybe for the wife getting the kids? Or the car? Or the club membership? Why do the courts get involved at all when it comes to custody of children? Why? Because when a marriage ends, the court wants to make sure their RIGHTS from marriage to both their mother and father are preserved.

The courts get involved in child custody regardless of whether a couple are married or not.

The courts work to ensure that the children's welfare is protected- and the court- to protect the children's welfare- can decide to prevent access to one of the parents.

So much for the children being part of the marriage contract.

 

[Skylar]

[ Also, divorce proves that children are legally viewed as parties to the marriage benefits.

No.

No more than it proves the house is a party to the marriage benefits.

The court settles child custody disputes whether a couple is married or not.

A house doesn't get split custody between divorcees...not usually. Children are regarded NOT as chattel. It is THEIR interests that determine custody and child support; not the interests of the parents.

Try again, liar.

Show us the law recognizing children as parties to the marriage of their parents.

You can't. You made that shit up. And when we call you on your imaginary nonsense, you insist we're 'lying'.

Sorry, Sil.......but your imagination isn't the law, no matter how hard you believe it is.

 

[Syriusly]

[ Also, divorce proves that children are legally viewed as parties to the marriage benefits.

No.

No more than it proves the house is a party to the marriage benefits.

The court settles child custody disputes whether a couple is married or not.

A house doesn't get split custody between divorcees...not usually. Children are regarded NOT as chattel. It is THEIR interests that determine custody and child support; not the interests of the parents.

Try again, liar.

Show us the law recognizing children as parties to the marriage of their parents.

You can't. You made that shit up. And when we call you on your imaginary nonsense, you insist we're 'lying'.

Sorry, Sil.......but your imagination isn't the law, no matter how hard you believe it is.

Community property.

During a marriage, all of the wealth a couple acquire becomes community property. Because they are partners- just as if they were business partners.

When they divorce, the community property is divided by judge between the partners in the marriage.

And no- it doesn't go to the children.

Because they not only are not partners- they often didn't even exist when the partnership was formed.

 

[ogibillm]

custody and child support and the interests of the child are all decided by courts outside of divorces as well.

in other words deciding custody and child support issues has nothing to do with marriage.

Why? If the children were mere chattel when a marriage broke up, why wouldn't the lawyers just be able to strike an agreement? The husband could trade the house maybe for the wife getting the kids? Or the car? Or the club membership? Why do the courts get involved at all when it comes to custody of children? Why? Because when a marriage ends, the court wants to make sure their RIGHTS from marriage to both their mother and father are preserved.

the court decides child custody and visitation rights regardless of marriage. it happens all the time. so marriage is not a prerequisite for court involvement.

and let's take a look at my friend. hos parents divorced when he was 25. as the youngest child how did the court recognize his participation n the marriage contract?

 

[Silhouette]

the court decides child custody and visitation rights regardless of marriage. it happens all the time. so marriage is not a prerequisite for court involvement.

and let's take a look at my friend. hos parents divorced when he was 25. as the youngest child how did the court recognize his participation n the marriage contract?

That's an excellent argument. I'm sure that any judge or court anywhere will instantly be impressed that children have no part in marriage, derive no benefits from it; and that marriage was not created for them in the first place, thousands of years ago...

Good luck in court. You're going to need it.

 

[ogibillm]

the court decides child custody and visitation rights regardless of marriage. it happens all the time. so marriage is not a prerequisite for court involvement.

and let's take a look at my friend. hos parents divorced when he was 25. as the youngest child how did the court recognize his participation n the marriage contract?

That's an excellent argument. I'm sure that any judge or court anywhere will instantly be impressed that children have no part in marriage, derive no benefits from it; and that marriage was not created for them in the first place, thousands of years ago...

Good luck in court. You're going to need it.

lol. i don't need luck in court. the court agrees with me. children are not a part of the marriage contract. marriage was not created for children - children pre-date marriage.

so tell me, how did the court recognize the participation of my adult friend and his older siblings in the divorce proceedings of his parents?

 

[Silhouette]

lol. i don't need luck in court. the court agrees with me. children are not a part of the marriage contract. marriage was not created for children - children pre-date marriage.

so tell me, how did the court recognize the participation of my adult friend and his older siblings in the divorce proceedings of his parents?

Actually, Kennedy cited children needing marriage as the reason he approved of Obergefell.

You've got your work cut out for you pal...

 

[ogibillm]

lol. i don't need luck in court. the court agrees with me. children are not a part of the marriage contract. marriage was not created for children - children pre-date marriage.

so tell me, how did the court recognize the participation of my adult friend and his older siblings in the divorce proceedings of his parents?

Actually, Kennedy cited children needing marriage as the reason he approved of Obergefell.

You've got your work cut out for you pal...

marriage is great for kids. marriage is not required for kids and even though it benefits kids to have married parents kids are not part of that contract.

so tell me, if kids are part of the marriage contract how did the court recognize that when my adult friend and his adult siblings were not in any way considered during the divorce proceedings of his parents?

 

[Silhouette]

marriage is great for kids. marriage is not required for kids and even though it benefits kids to have married parents kids are not part of that contract.

so tell me, if kids are part of the marriage contract how did the court recognize that when my adult friend and his adult siblings were not in any way considered during the divorce proceedings of his parents?

^^ Good luck. Tell it to the judge. From my POV and the POV of billions worldwide, children DO derive unique benefits from marriage. You're up against it. And you know it.

 

[ogibillm]

marriage is great for kids. marriage is not required for kids and even though it benefits kids to have married parents kids are not part of that contract.

so tell me, if kids are part of the marriage contract how did the court recognize that when my adult friend and his adult siblings were not in any way considered during the divorce proceedings of his parents?

^^ Good luck. Tell it to the judge. From my POV and the POV of billions worldwide, children DO derive unique benefits from marriage. You're up against it. And you know it.

tell me why the court didn't consider my friend or his siblings in the divorce proceedings of his parents.

and i agree that children derive benefits from parents that are married. they have more stable homes, they have two parents to look after them. they are less likely to live in poverty. seems like a good reason to support gay marriage.

after all, married or not, gay people can still have kids.

 

[Silhouette]

i agree that children derive benefits from parents that are married. they have more stable homes, they have two parents to look after them. they are less likely to live in poverty. seems like a good reason to support gay marriage...

Good, we agree. Psychologists and youth outreach specialists say that one of the benefits of a married home for children is regular contact by the child of both a mother and father.

God some bad news for you: Gay marriage does not provide that vital benefit and leaves children involved instead with a lifelong-void as a matter of a legal binding contract...that...affects children negatively.

Oopsies.