- Moderator
- #541
Fags are criminal deviants and always will be. They are sexual predators at their core.
Oh please, you are not going to trot out that tired old "All homosexuals are sexual predators" bullshit, are you?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Fags are criminal deviants and always will be. They are sexual predators at their core.
And if the couple decide that they are not having any children, is the marriage defunct?
Or if, by age or medical malady, the couple is incapable of having children, is their marriage valid?
I defy you to find any recent legal precedent for that. And by recent, I mean during a time when women were not considered property when they marry.
Prior to 2015 is recent. The common understanding of bother mother and father being vital to children in marriage has been maintained from time immemorial to 2015 and beyond.
They obviously did not consider it vital, since the divorce laws created a situation in which 46% of children under 18 were in a single parent home. But you steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge that.
I'm mixed race so no I wouldn't. And homos are not a race, so stop with the false equivelancy arguments.Syriusly...you are beyond dumb. Comparing interracial marriage to faggotry is insane. They are not even close to the same thing. Ever.
50 years ago you would have been whining about 'N*ggers marrying white women'
When was being black a crime in this country, Syriusly? You can't use the constitution to back your case when the constitution allowed states to put faggots to death for years and tears as criminals.
None because the court's solution for the children's implicit enjoyment of the contract is to force the two divorced parents to cooperate as a team still to raise the children, only in two homes instead of one. The one home having become too hostile for the childrens' best enjoyment.Sil thinks divorces are only granted when they don't serve the best interest of the child. How many divorces have been denied b/c it was the in the best interest for the child that the parents stayed together?
None because the court's solution for the children's implicit enjoyment of the contract is to force the two divorced parents to cooperate as a team still to raise the children, only in two homes instead of one. The one home having become too hostile for the childrens' best enjoyment.Sil thinks divorces are only granted when they don't serve the best interest of the child. How many divorces have been denied b/c it was the in the best interest for the child that the parents stayed together?
The point being the court recognizes that even when the two adults involved want nothing whatsoever to do with each other, they HAVE TO cooperate and see each other still to negotiate the most important partners to the marriage contract: the children.
If the adults were the most important partners to that contract, they'd have no obligation to maintain civility and contact for the continued raising of the children by both mother and father.
Bull-the-fucking-shit they weren't! Marriage was created FOR, BY AND ABOUT stabilizing family units for the supreme benefit to children. Gawd you lie. Care to run that comment by a panel of your peers?
None because the court's solution for the children's implicit enjoyment of the contract is to force the two divorced parents to cooperate as a team still to raise the children, only in two homes instead of one. The one home having become too hostile for the childrens' best enjoyment..Sil thinks divorces are only granted when they don't serve the best interest of the child. How many divorces have been denied b/c it was the in the best interest for the child that the parents stayed together?
Given that, Obergefell was a de facto illegal contract revision to the demise of the main enjoyers of said contract: children who got both mother and father from marriage.
Except that your premise is flawed: Race has Constitutional protections. Deviant sex practitioners do not. Loving was about race. All the convoluted spinoffs of that flawed premise hold no more water than a rotting sieve.Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.
And, two adult individuals do not have the right to alter a contract to the demise of children who enjoy the right to both a mother and father in the marriage contract. And have enjoyed that right since time immemorial to 2015....taken away not by legislation, but by illegal judicial fiat of the USSC overstepping its powers and attempting to add new vitally-different language implied to the 14th Amendment without the permission of the Legislature (the governed). Which is sedition.
Unlike you I have read actual books of history.
Legal marriages- and that includes religious marriages- were created for many reasons- among them to legally control inheritances- and also to secure partnerships between families or even countries.
They were not created to ensure that children were raised by a mother and a father.
Bull-the-fucking-shit they weren't! Marriage was created FOR, BY AND ABOUT stabilizing family units for the supreme benefit to children. Gawd you lie. Care to run that comment by a panel of your peers?
Then why are you always going on and on about gay marriage? Straight marriages are responsible for more children not having a mother & father than gay marriage ever will have. If the point of marriage is to protect children, why aren't you out here screaming about divorce laws?
None because the court's solution for the children's implicit enjoyment of the contract is to force the two divorced parents to cooperate as a team still to raise the children, only in two homes instead of one. The one home having become too hostile for the childrens' best enjoyment.Sil thinks divorces are only granted when they don't serve the best interest of the child. How many divorces have been denied b/c it was the in the best interest for the child that the parents stayed together?
The Divorce court doesn't 'force' the two divorced parents to cooperate- the court will 'force' a decision on how the child custody will be resolved. The only obligation the court will force on the the parents is that each will be financially responsible in someway.
Child Custody Basics - FindLaw
In deciding who will have custody, the courts consider various factors. The overriding consideration is always the child's best interests, although that can be hard to determine. Often, the main factor is which parent has been the child's "primary caretaker" (more on this below). If the children are old enough, the courts will take their preference into account in making a custody decision.
Although the "best interest" standard does vary from state to state, some factors are common in the best interest analysis used by the individual states
When a co-parent won’t cooperate or stop fighting, it can be positively maddening. Ex-spouses can become immersed in rage, frustration, and a sense of powerlessness when their co-parenting partnership isn’t working. This can leave little energy for either to move ahead with their post-divorce lives.
You cannot force an uncooperative co-parent to stop fighting. You can take them to court and make their choice to misbehave costly and time consuming (for you both). You can do this repeatedly. When Your Ex-spouse and Co-parent Won't Cooperate | HuffPost
None because the court's solution for the children's implicit enjoyment of the contract is to force the two divorced parents to cooperate as a team still to raise the children, only in two homes instead of one. The one home having become too hostile for the childrens' best enjoyment.Sil thinks divorces are only granted when they don't serve the best interest of the child. How many divorces have been denied b/c it was the in the best interest for the child that the parents stayed together?
The point being the court recognizes that even when the two adults involved want nothing whatsoever to do with each other, they HAVE TO cooperate and see each other still to negotiate the most important partners to the marriage contract: the children.
If the adults were the most important partners to that contract, they'd have no obligation to maintain civility and contact for the continued raising of the children by both mother and father. But they do and they must. And therein is yet more proof that marriage contracts are about children and the adults mere secondary players...
Given that, Obergefell was a de facto illegal contract revision to the demise of the main enjoyers of said contract: children who got both mother and father from marriage.
The Divorce court doesn't 'force' the two divorced parents to cooperate- the court will 'force' a decision on how the child custody will be resolved. The only obligation the court will force on the the parents is that each will be financially responsible in someway.
Note the bold print
Child Custody Basics - FindLaw
In deciding who will have custody, the courts consider various factors. The overriding consideration is always the child's best interests, although that can be hard to determine. Often, the main factor is which parent has been the child's "primary caretaker" (more on this below). If the children are old enough, the courts will take their preference into account in making a custody decision.
Although the "best interest" standard does vary from state to state, some factors are common in the best interest analysis used by the individual states
It's odd how the court doesn't consider the adult's best interest...only the children. Weird for "non players" in the marriage contract dissolution procedure..
And as to non-cooperation not ending up with consequences:
When a co-parent won’t cooperate or stop fighting, it can be positively maddening. Ex-spouses can become immersed in rage, frustration, and a sense of powerlessness when their co-parenting partnership isn’t working. This can leave little energy for either to move ahead with their post-divorce lives.
You cannot force an uncooperative co-parent to stop fighting. You can take them to court and make their choice to misbehave costly and time consuming (for you both). You can do this repeatedly. Unfortunately, co-parents focused on being destructive or on hurting their ex can always find new ways to do so. When Your Ex-spouse and Co-parent Won't Cooperate | HuffPost
And if same sex couple do not have children, is it all ok then?
And if same sex couple do not have children, is it all ok then?
1. a same-sex couple are never the mother and father to children
2. I've covered this before. No, it's not all well, because the overriding marriage contract approved by each state considers the contract for the anticipated arrival of children. If they do not arrive, it doesn't change the terms of the contract. The players for the childrens sake as a legal group affected are still mother and father. Other arrangements can be called something else, but they cannot be called marriage because they don't and cannot ever provide both mother and father to the children the states want raised in these stable homes.
Oh Unkatore shows up to help spam.
Note the bold print
Child Custody Basics - FindLaw
In deciding who will have custody, the courts consider various factors. The overriding consideration is always the child's best interests, although that can be hard to determine. Often, the main factor is which parent has been the child's "primary caretaker" (more on this below). If the children are old enough, the courts will take their preference into account in making a custody decision.
Although the "best interest" standard does vary from state to state, some factors are common in the best interest analysis used by the individual states
It's odd how the court doesn't consider the adult's best interest...only the children. Weird for "non players" in the marriage contract dissolution procedure..
And if same sex couple do not have children, is it all ok then?
1. a same-sex couple are never the mother and father to children
.
And if same sex couple do not have children, is it all ok then?
2. I've covered this before. No, it's not all well, because the overriding marriage contract approved by each state considers the contract for the anticipated arrival of children. If they do not arrive, it doesn't change the terms of the contract. The players for the childrens sake as a legal group affected are still mother and father. Other arrangements can be called something else, but they cannot be called marriage because they don't and cannot ever provide both mother and father to the children the states want raised in these stable homes..