New GOP Edge: Did 5 Dem/Indp Justices Ratify Child-Deprivation Using Fake "Gay Gene" Premise?

[Skylar]

I bet your local police department and CYS just love you flooding their offices with nonsense calls about how gay people raising their children is child abuse.

Protection of children happens in a variety of ways. I prefer the top-down approach. Police will do what the new US Supreme Court will tell them to do on the question of children-collective not having unique representation for their interests re: Obergefell.

Sil, if even you are going to ignore your standards of 'child endangerment', surely you'll understand why we don't have much use for your pseudo-legal hysteria on the matter.

Meanwhile, the courts have explicitly found that same sex marriage harms children:

The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Obergefell v. Hodges

This is the actual finding. And it trumps your imagination every time.

 

[Skylar]

Beating a dead horse

Gays can marry....live with it

Removing mothers and fathers as important to children in the marriage contract is by no means whatsoever a "dead horse". Child protective laws require that when a contract harms children, we all are required to report that harm and act to change it immediately.

Smiling....there's no requirement that we 'report' gay people for raising their own children. You know you're completely full of shit. Which is why even you, the purveyor of such pseudo-legal nonsense, have never honored your imaginary 'requirement' by reporting a single same sex couple for raising children.

The harm and humiliation is caused by the very bans you insist we impose upon same sex couples.

The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Obergefell v. Hodges

We're not going to harm and humiliate these children just because you have a bizarre fixation with gay couples.

 

[mdk]

I bet your local police department and CYS just love you flooding their offices with nonsense calls about how gay people raising their children is child abuse.

Protection of children happens in a variety of ways. I prefer the top-down approach. Police will do what the new US Supreme Court will tell them to do on the question of children-collective not having unique representation for their interests re: Obergefell.

But you're required to report it? If you think gays raising children is child abuse than you should be reporting those that do to the proper authorities. We both know why you haven't done so, though. It's b/c they would laugh you off the other end of the receiver.

 

[Syriusly]

Beating a dead horse

Gays can marry....live with it

Child protective laws require that when a contract harms children, we all are required to report that harm and act to change it immediately.

So have you reported this to your local police yet?

You keep claiming that you are required to 'report that harm' but you still haven't reported anything.

I wonder why that is.......

 

[Syriusly]

Then explain how you assimilate this quote from the Supreme Court in your pseudo-legal babble?

The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Obergefell V. Hodges

The Court erred in extending compassion to a non-static behavioral cult. That's how I explain it. l.

That and $5.00 will get you a cup of coffee.

Your opinion/'explanation' is purely your delusion and has no basis in law or reality.

 

[Silhouette]

But you're required to report it? If you think gays raising children is child abuse than you should be reporting those that do to the proper authorities.

Infancy Doctrine discussion, page 53 of actual text here: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

****
Determining what is a necessity for a minor is a fact-intensive inquiry, although also a matter of law, and it is useful to look at what has been upheld and rejected as a necessity in the past. Food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses are in the traditional category of necessities. Education also generally falls in this list. Interestingly enough, "retaining counsel in criminal proceedings" has also been upheld as a necessity and "under extraordinary circumstances," counsel in civil suit can be as well.

*******
Obergefell made it's third area of emphasis about children and their part in the whole of the marriage discussion. Children as in children in general, the collective.

Where was their unique representation at Obergefell? The five Justices who unilaterally and without citation deemed that their historical benefit of mother or father in the marriage contract are no longer necessary to them?

Because the USSC ratified this pernicious type of child-deprivation without power or citation in order to do so, the "proper authorities" which could override this institutionalized child abuse would be a new USSC. Stay tuned.

 

[Skylar]

But you're required to report it? If you think gays raising children is child abuse than you should be reporting those that do to the proper authorities.

Infancy Doctrine discussion, page 53 of actual text here: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

****
Determining what is a necessity for a minor is a fact-intensive inquiry, although also a matter of law, and it is useful to look at what has been upheld and rejected as a necessity in the past. Food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses are in the traditional category of necessities. Education also generally falls in this list. Interestingly enough, "retaining counsel in criminal proceedings" has also been upheld as a necessity and "under extraordinary circumstances," counsel in civil suit can be as well.

*******
Obergefell made it's third area of emphasis about children and their part in the whole of the marriage discussion. Children as in children in general, the collective.

Where was their unique representation at Obergefell? The five Justices who unilaterally and without citation deemed that their historical benefit of mother or father in the marriage contract are no longer necessary to them?

Because the USSC ratified this pernicious type of child-deprivation without power or citation in order to do so, the "proper authorities" which could override this institutionalized child abuse would be a new USSC. Stay tuned.

And found that same sex marriage bans *harm* and humiliate children.

The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Obergefell v. Hodges

Thus, by your own standards, the supreme court was obligated to overturn such bans and recognize the marriages of same sex couples. Worse, you've cited this same document as backing the claim that children are parties to the marriage of their parents (it never say this), that children are implied beneficiaries of marriage (it never says this nor uses the term 'implied' nor 'beneficiary') or that all marriages are conditioned on procreation (the Supreme Court says that NO marriage is conditioned on procreation).

Your sources simply don't say what you do. You're citing your imagination.

 

[mdk]

But you're required to report it? If you think gays raising children is child abuse than you should be reporting those that do to the proper authorities.

Infancy Doctrine discussion, page 53 of actual text here: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

****
Determining what is a necessity for a minor is a fact-intensive inquiry, although also a matter of law, and it is useful to look at what has been upheld and rejected as a necessity in the past. Food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses are in the traditional category of necessities. Education also generally falls in this list. Interestingly enough, "retaining counsel in criminal proceedings" has also been upheld as a necessity and "under extraordinary circumstances," counsel in civil suit can be as well.

*******
Obergefell made it's third area of emphasis about children and their part in the whole of the marriage discussion. Children as in children in general, the collective.

Where was their unique representation at Obergefell? The five Justices who unilaterally and without citation deemed that their historical benefit of mother or father in the marriage contract are no longer necessary to them?

Because the USSC ratified this pernicious type of child-deprivation without power or citation in order to do so, the "proper authorities" which could override this institutionalized child abuse would be a new USSC. Stay tuned.

I've rejected your silly notion that children are party to the marriage contract of their parents on countless occasions. What makes you think repeating the same bullshit again will change my mind?

 

[Syriusly]

But you're required to report it? If you think gays raising children is child abuse than you should be reporting those that do to the proper authorities.

Infancy Doctrine discussion, page 53 of actual text here: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

****
Determining what is a necessity for a minor is a fact-intensive inquiry, although also a matter of law, and it is useful to look at what has been upheld and rejected as a necessity in the past. Food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses are in the traditional category of necessities. Education also generally falls in this list. Interestingly enough, "retaining counsel in criminal proceedings" has also been upheld as a necessity and "under extraordinary circumstances," counsel in civil suit can be as well.

*******
Obergefell made it's third area of emphasis about children and their part in the whole of the marriage discussion. Children as in children in general, the collective.

.

Ah Silhouette with her 'selective' dishonest quotes.



What is considered a 'necessity' under the Infancy Doctrine?



If a real child- not an imaginary child- is made part of a contract by his or her real parents- not imaginary parents- that child can- under the Infancy Doctrine- essentially get out of the contract.



BUT- if the child incurred any 'necessities' while in the contract- the child is obligated to pay for them- i.e. liable

 

[LaDexter]

Homosexuality is not genetic.

It comes from touching kids ages 4-6, which is why the radical homos are so obsessed with being Boy Scout leaders....

 

[Silhouette]

Homosexuality is not genetic.

It comes from touching kids ages 4-6, which is why the radical homos are so obsessed with being Boy Scout leaders....

The CDC survey of 3, 000 gay men, published early 2005 in Psychiatry Today said that most gay men reported having been molested as boys. The CDC called the statistics in fact "epidemic". They don't use those words lightly in that outfit.

 

[Syriusly]

Homosexuality is not genetic.

It comes from touching kids ages 4-6,.

So you think that gays become gays because they work in kindergartens and pre-schools?

You homophobic bigots get more and more bizarre.

 

[Syriusly]

Homosexuality is not genetic.

It comes from touching kids ages 4-6, which is why the radical homos are so obsessed with being Boy Scout leaders....

The CDC survey of 3, 000 gay men, published early 2005 in Psychiatry Today said that most gay men reported having been molested as boys. The CDC called the statistics in fact "epidemic". They don't use those words lightly in that outfit.

tell us more about necessaries....

 

[Silhouette]

Syriusly's posts = a diversion to this vv It's one of those pesky empirical studies that reflects poorly on the "born this way" premise from which all their court victories have been won thusfar...

Homosexuality is not genetic.

It comes from touching kids ages 4-6, which is why the radical homos are so obsessed with being Boy Scout leaders....

The CDC survey of 3, 000 gay men, published early 2005 in Psychiatry Today said that most gay men reported having been molested as boys. The CDC called the statistics in fact "epidemic". They don't use those words lightly in that outfit.

 

[LaDexter]

So you think that gays become gays because they work in kindergartens and pre-schools?

I know it.

The Boy Scouts are Ground Zero for "recruits."

 

[Skylar]

Syriusly's posts = a diversion to this vv It's one of those pesky empirical studies that reflects poorly on the "born this way" premise from which all their court victories have been won thusfar...

Homosexuality is not genetic.

It comes from touching kids ages 4-6, which is why the radical homos are so obsessed with being Boy Scout leaders....

The CDC survey of 3, 000 gay men, published early 2005 in Psychiatry Today said that most gay men reported having been molested as boys. The CDC called the statistics in fact "epidemic". They don't use those words lightly in that outfit.

Nah, he's quoting the actual Infancy Doctrine.

You're telling us about your imaginary version. And now that he's used the actual law to obliterate your imaginary version......you don't want to talk about the Infancy Doctrine any more.

Shocker.

 

[LaDexter]

HOMOS should STAY AWAY FROM YOUNG KIDS!!!!!!

Period.

 

[Skylar]

HOMOS should STAY AWAY FROM YOUNG KIDS!!!!!!

Period.

Same sex couples are already parents by the 10s of thousands. Are you calling for their children to be taken from them forcibly?

 

[Syriusly]

So you think that gays become gays because they work in kindergartens and pre-schools?

I know it.

The Boy Scouts are Ground Zero for "recruits."

Ah so you were Boy Scout?

 

[Syriusly]

HOMOS should STAY AWAY FROM YOUNG KIDS!!!!!!

Period.

You do sound pretty traumatized. A good therapist could probably help you.