Saving Children From Homosexual Predators: Emperor Trump to Reverse LGBT Adoption Rights Reforms

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It had to be done and it was the right thing to do.

It was the wrong thing to do. And your arrogant (who are you to decide for all of society what is the "right" thing to do?!?) and lawless views are repulsive.

Allow me to make the proper analogy for you. Currently, birth rates are down both around the world and here in the U.S. That's a fact. Now imagine if a rapist goes around raping dozens of women and then tells law enforcement "it was the right thing to do - birth rates are down and I'm trying to get them back up to protect mankind". Imagine he told you that after raping your wife, mother, daughters, sisters.

If you were any type of decent person (and...I'm really beginning to wonder), you'd be furious. A person doesn't get to arbitrarily decide for all of society what is "right" and they sure as shit do not get to violate the law for their arrogant view.

If you think it is "right" - then you state your case to the American people and you get the laws change legally.

Now you're just blathering. It appears that it is you who want to decide what is right for others. It is also apparent that you have no understanding of, or appreciation for constitutional law or the concept of federal supremacy.

 

[P@triot]

"Children"? Or "child"? So one child and thus it's all bad? Can we apply the same reasoning across the board? Particularly when talking about the 1 in 4 girls sexually abused before 18.....many times by their fathers and other male family members and close friends?

I don't disagree with that at all bodecea. If you look above you'll see that I completely agreed with antontoo on that point.

That's why I also stated that protecting children should be our #1 priority - including in traditional families.

 

[P@triot]

Now you're just blathering.

Now you've lost the debate and have no intelligent response to the facts.

It is also apparent that you have no understanding of, or appreciation for constitutional law or the concept of federal supremacy.

I just schooled you on constitutional law, my friend. And I'll do it here again for you. The "Supremacy Clause" only applies to federal actions which are constitutional.

If the federal government decides tomorrow that progressives don't have 1st Amendment rights, will you fully support their "federal supremacy"?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Now you're just blathering.

Now you've lost the debate and have no intelligent response to the facts.

It is also apparent that you have no understanding of, or appreciation for constitutional law or the concept of federal supremacy.

I just schooled you on constitutional law, my friend. And I'll do it here again for you. The "Supremacy Clause" only applies to federal actions which are constitutional.

If the federal government decides tomorrow that progressives don't have 1st Amendment rights, will you fully support their "federal supremacy"?

You continuing to blather and prove that you don't really understand how things work. I'm willing to be that you never read the constitution and certainly not the Obergefell decision or any of the numerous lower federal court decisions overturning state bans on same sex marriage.You're no capable of schooling me on anything.

 

[Syriusly]

Why not heterosexual predators too?

Same sex heterosexuals don't marry each other and demand special rights!

That is a horribly weak response to a very good question...Sounds to me like you are more concerned with blocking homosexuals than you are about protecting children from pedophiles.

Sounds to me like you are more concerned with attacking homosexuals rather than protecting children from pedophiles.

 

[Syriusly]

There is a considerable body of data, some of which I ( and others- see just above) have posted here, that shows that children raised by same sex couple do as well as children raised in "traditional" homes and that having a "mom and a dad" is not important to their development. There are many factors that far out weigh that by far.

There is considerable data - and all of it proves that a same-sex couple environment does not produce results as good as traditional families.

This leaves only four studies that are methodologically sound. And as the American College of Pediatricians brief shows,

The American College of Pediatricians is a fringe Conservative physicians group that will not even reveal how many members it has- it has an estimated 500 members.

The American Academy of Pediatricians has 64,000 members- and represents mainstream Pediatric doctors- and their position is quite clear:

Studies have shown that children with gay and/or lesbian parents are ultimately just as happy with themselves and their own gender as are their friends with heterosexual parents. Children whose parents are homosexual show no difference in their choice of friends, activities, or interests compared to children whose parents are heterosexual. As adults, their career choices and lifestyles are similar to those of children raised by heterosexual parents.


Research comparing children raised by homosexual parents to children raised by heterosexual parents has found no developmental differences in intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, or peer popularity between them. Children raised by homosexual parents can and do have fulfilling relationships with their friends as well as romantic relationships later on.

Gay and Lesbian Parents

 

[Syriusly]

Dear Sir, Please allow me to point something out to you. While you are on a relentless and senseless rant about how we have failed to provide any evidence that kids do well with same sex parents...YOU have not even made the slightest attempt at providing any evidence that they DO NOT do well, and are disturbed by having gay parents. Nothing that is except the bizarre images of men with beards in miniskirts that you pull out of the dark recesses of your diseased mind. You realize that, right? Holy shit!! NO??

But here is the one thing we should all agree on: whether heterosexual or homosexual - protecting children from abusive situations (whether it be sexual, or physical, or mental, etc.) should be the #1 priority.

This is one thing we can all agree on.

However I guarantee you- if you see a thread talking about child sex abuse here at USMB- it will be started with the intent of blaming gays for child sex abuse.

There are virtually no other threads started about child abuse here at USMB.

 

[Syriusly]

Gays brought this on themselves.

They could have chosen to be grateful for what they were offered....... Civil Contract with ALL the benefits and responsibilities of marriage BUT without it being called a 'marriage'

They fucked up.

Had they opted for the Civil Union, nobody would be bothering with them right now. Nobody would be all that upset. I shouldn't say 'nobody' -- I mean very few or nobody of consequence.

But Gays didn't do that. They got up in our faces.

This whole thing wasn't about 'Equal Rights', it was about getting up in our faces and saying "**** YOU!" to the entire heterosexual population of the World.

Uh.... Guys?

Not a smart move. And you're gonna pay for it.

Bigly

And you deserve it for your arrogance

I like your alternative facts.......gays tried to get civil unions and it was the christer right who shot that idea down........Ok, so we went for legal marriage. We would have accepted civil unions....but it was your facist christers who said no. Too late now.

Both of you are dead wrong. States have had legal homosexual marriage for decades now. Vermont was doing it in the early/mid 90's. And that's the way it should have remained. It was a decision for the people of each state.

The federal government simply has zero authority over the issue of marriage. What's even worse is that the representative of the people - Congress - the only body empowered to make legislation at the federal level wasn't even involved. Instead, 9 unelected officials illegally created law from the bench.

The first state to legalize 'gay marriage' was Massachusetts- and not 'decades ago- the first gay marriage was in 2005- and that was because the Massachusetts Supreme Court said so.

Meanwhile- the U.S. Supreme Court did its Constitutional duty- just as it had 3 times before regarding marriage laws- it overturned unconstitutional marriage laws- just as it did when it overturned Loving v. Virginia as being unconstitutional.

 

[Syriusly]

It had to be done and it was the right thing to do. Children and families could not wait any longer. While same sex marriage was already legal in most states when Obergefell was decided, in most of those cases it was imposed by a lower federal court. States and "the people" do not get to decide on civil rights issues that violate the constitution which is the supreme law of the land. If you think that federal courts should not have decided the issue of same sex marriage , you would also have to be opposed to the decision in 1967 that overturned laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Do you?

Yep. I vehemently oppose anything which is unconstitutional. The federal government simply has zero authority over this issue. And it is illegal for the Supreme Court to create law from the bench. This was an egregious violation of lawful government.

What law did the Supreme Court create? What is the name of it?

The Supreme Court has overturned marriage laws 4 times now- starting with Loving v. Virginia and ending with Obergefell.

Who does decide what is unconstitutional?

You?

Or the 9 Justices who are appointed to the Supreme Court as per the Constitution?

 

[P@triot]

Dear Sir, Please allow me to point something out to you. While you are on a relentless and senseless rant about how we have failed to provide any evidence that kids do well with same sex parents...YOU have not even made the slightest attempt at providing any evidence that they DO NOT do well, and are disturbed by having gay parents. Nothing that is except the bizarre images of men with beards in miniskirts that you pull out of the dark recesses of your diseased mind. You realize that, right? Holy shit!! NO??

But here is the one thing we should all agree on: whether heterosexual or homosexual - protecting children from abusive situations (whether it be sexual, or physical, or mental, etc.) should be the #1 priority.

This is one thing we can all agree on.

However I guarantee you- if you see a thread talking about child sex abuse here at USMB- it will be started with the intent of blaming gays for child sex abuse.

There are virtually no other threads started about child abuse here at USMB.

Why are you preaching to me on that? I've already stated that position was wrong.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Gender does not make any difference in parenting.

The facts prove otherwise my dear...

How Children Raised By Same-Sex Married Couples Fare

This is a horseshit opinion piece that they try to back up with bogus research by a breakaway fringe group. If you believe them, you must also believe that man made climate change is a hoax because three out of 100 scientists say so

Back in 2002, a small fringe group of pediatricians called the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) broke off from the country's main pediatric group, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), in protest of the AAP’s support for LGBT adoption rights . Since then, the ACP has been a go-to source for right-wing activists and news outlets looking for anti-LGBT pseudoscience to counteract the views of mainstream groups like the AAP. - See more at:
Anti-Gay Doctors’ Group: AIDS Is Result Of ‘Practicing A Sexual Act That Goes Against Our Natural Design’ | Right Wing Watch

Also, the publication is a tool of a right wing anti gay organization:

Prior to starting The Daily Signal, The Heritage Foundation ran two other digital publications: The Foundry, a blog, and Townhall.com, a news and opinion site. Townhall.com was acquired by Salem Communications in 2005, while The Foundry was phased out following the advent of The Daily Signal.[5][9]

The Daily Signal was announced by The Heritage Foundation in May 2014.[1] Atlantic Media Strategies was hired to design the site specifically for mobile phones and tablets.[1]

 

[P@triot]

What law did the Supreme Court create? What is the name of it?

The law which stipulates that all 50 states must accept and recognize gay marriage. I believe it is called "progressives are cry babies and can't accept the American people reject their bat-shit crazy, anti-constitutional ideology" law.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What law did the Supreme Court create? What is the name of it?

The law which stipulates that all 50 states must accept and recognize gay marriage. I believe it is called "progressives are cry babies and can't accept the American people reject their bat-shit crazy, anti-constitutional ideology" law.

It's called enforcing the equal protection clause of the Constitution as per the 14th Amendment.

 

[P@triot]

Who does decide what is unconstitutional?

The Supreme Court creating law from the bench is unconstitutional. The federal government involving themselves in marriage is unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution says so.

You would know that if you weren't an anti-constitutional, anti-American fascist who refuses to read a three page document which is the foundation of your entire government and the highest law in the land.

 

[P@triot]

What law did the Supreme Court create? What is the name of it?

The law which stipulates that all 50 states must accept and recognize gay marriage. I believe it is called "progressives are cry babies and can't accept the American people reject their bat-shit crazy, anti-constitutional ideology" law.

It's called enforcing the equal protection clause of the Constitution as per the 14th Amendment.

Not being able to redefine marriage does not require "protection". Nice try though. I respect your desperate stretch to make something in the Constitution fit your false narrative. That is considerably more effort than most progressives will give.

 

[Syriusly]

Who does decide what is unconstitutional?

The Supreme Court creating law from the bench is unconstitutional. The federal government involving themselves in marriage is unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution says so..

The Supreme Court has never created law from the bench.

Feel free to point out where the Constitution mentions marriage at all.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Who does decide what is unconstitutional?

The Supreme Court creating law from the bench is unconstitutional. The federal government involving themselves in marriage is unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution says so.

You would know that if you weren't an anti-constitutional, anti-American fascist who refuses to read a three page document which is the foundation of your entire government and the highest law in the land.

So wrong it's sad. You studied Constitution law where exactly??

⦁ The Federal government is supreme and the courts acted within the law in the Obergefell case:

Why it is proper for the Federal Government and the federal courts to have the last word?

The Founders believed that a republican government was one in which:
⦁ The power of government is held by the people.
⦁ The people give power to leaders they elect to represent them and serve their interests.
⦁ The representatives are responsible for helping all the people in the country, not just a few people.
Lesson 3: What Is a Republican Government?

Nothing here trumps or negates the constitution and the bill of rights, which the people ratified through their elected representatives as they later did with the 14th amendment.
The constitution is clear on the principle of federal supremacy

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.

The supremacy of federal law over state law only applies if Congress is acting in pursuance of its constitutionally authorized powers.

Nullification is the legal theory that states have the right to nullify, or invalidate, federal laws which they view as being unconstitutional; or federal laws that they view as having exceeded Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers. The Supreme Court has rejected nullification, finding that under Article III of the Constitution, the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law. Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia
Judicial review is an established principle: judicial review

While judicial review of state laws is clearly outlined in the supremacy clause, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution did not resolve the question of whether the federal courts should have this power over congressional and executive acts. During the early years of the Republic, the Supreme Court upheld congressional acts, which implied the power of judicial review. But the key question was whether the Court had the power to strike down an act of Congress.

In 1803, the issue was settled in marbury v. madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, when the Supreme Court, for the first time, ruled an act of Congress unconstitutional. In Marbury, Chief Justice John Marshall reasoned that since it is the duty of a court in a lawsuit to declare the law, and since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, where a rule of statutory law conflicts with a rule of the Constitution, then the law of the Constitution must prevail. Marshall asserted that it is "emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department, to say what the law is."

Notice how, in all of their desperation, none of the states fighting marriage equality are invoking nullification of federal supremacy because they know that it’s a losing proposition
The 5th and 14th amendments guarantee the right to due process. The 14th also establishes equal protection under the law and reaffirms federal supremacy.

The constitution matters.

When the members of the United States Constitutional Convention met in 1787, terminology was still unsettled. Not only were democracy and republic used more or less interchangeably in the colonies, but no established term existed for a representative government “by the people democracy
However it is true that they may have favored the term “Republic” as did Ben Franklin. Regardless of the words used, the definitions of both describe our system of government . Let’s consider the definitions of both
A Constitutional Republic, by definition, has three principle elements:
0. It is created by, and limited by, the constitution under which it is formed;
1. It is controlled by Law; and,
2. It is representative in its nature.
Republic

 

[Syriusly]

What law did the Supreme Court create? What is the name of it?

The law which stipulates that all 50 states must accept and recognize gay marriage..

There is no such law.

There just isn't.

There is a Supreme Court decision which overturned State laws that prohibited same gender marriage and prohibited recognition of same gender marriages performed in other states.

And that is in line with the Supreme Courts responsibility to rule on the constitutionality of State law.

 

[P@triot]

This is a horseshit opinion piece that they try to back up with bogus research by a breakaway fringe group. If you believe them, you must also believe that man made climate change is a hoax because three out of 100 scientists say so

Dude...."Global Warming" is a hoax.

Here are the facts (backed up with links) and they are indisputable:

• If "Global Warming" existed - why have "scientists" (ie dirt-bags on the Democrat payroll) been caught in not one, but two rounds of "Climate Gate" in which they were caught talking in emails about how they falsified their research in order to make it look like "Global Warming" existed?

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails:

(1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions;

(2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and

(3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

• If "Global Warming" existed - why has the planet been on a "cooling period" which was predicted decades in advance as part of a natural cycle?

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

• If "Global Warming" existed - why did liberals rebrand it to "Climate Change" after several years of cooler than normal periods proved them wrong? The left's entire position was that greenhouse gases were being trapped in the atmosphere causing the planet to heat up. Well then how in the hell is that also causing cooler temperatures. The same thing cannot cause opposite results. It's like saying my automobile drives both forward and backward simultaneously. Um...no. No it doesn't. I have to change the transmission manually from drive to reverse and can only do one at a time. It defies the laws of physics to proclaim that trapped greenhouse gases which are causing the earth to heat up are also causing the earth to cool down.

• If "Global Warming" existed - why did the polar ice-cap expand a mind-boggling 60% (or over 900,000 miles) when "scientists" (ie political activists on the Dumbocrat payroll) predicted it would be completely melted by 2014?

Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum

Thanks for playing my friend - but this here is a comprehensive beatdown backed with indisputable facts and links to them.

 

[Syriusly]

This is a horseshit opinion piece that they try to back up with bogus research by a breakaway fringe group. If you believe them, you must also believe that man made climate change is a hoax because three out of 100 scientists say so

Dude...."Global Warming" is a hoax.

Here are the facts (backed up with links) and they are indisputable:.

Whenever anyone says that what they are saying is 'indisputable' my BS meter goes off.