Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Debra K]

The only thing you have shown us, Silhouette, is that you don't know anything about contract law. Your entire argument is bogus.

We'll see if it is or not. Time will tell. No worries if it's tested in the appellate system, right?

And where's that test case? Do you have a citation? The Ferber case that you cite all the time holds that child pornography is not protected under the First Amendment. That's not a contract law case. You're wasting hours of your life and investing emotional energy into a non-existent cause. I understand that you once had a friend who was allegedly molested as a child and grew up to be a molester. If that is true, that is a tragedy. But it has nothing to do with the institution of marriage. The class of people whom you seek to harm are not responsible for your friend's tragic life.

 

[Silhouette]

The only thing you have shown us, Silhouette, is that you don't know anything about contract law. Your entire argument is bogus.

We'll see if it is or not. Time will tell. No worries if it's tested in the appellate system, right?

And where's that test case? Do you have a citation? The Ferber case that you cite all the time holds that child pornography is not protected under the First Amendment. That's not a contract law case. You're wasting hours of your life and investing emotional energy into a non-existent cause. .

We'll see... The case will probably be between a catholic adoption agency on behalf of the children vs whatever gay duo is trying to force them to disgorge orphans to them because they are "married".. That's the most likely scenario.

 

[Skylar]

The only thing you have shown us, Silhouette, is that you don't know anything about contract law. Your entire argument is bogus.

We'll see if it is or not. Time will tell. No worries if it's tested in the appellate system, right?

And where's that test case? Do you have a citation? The Ferber case that you cite all the time holds that child pornography is not protected under the First Amendment. That's not a contract law case. You're wasting hours of your life and investing emotional energy into a non-existent cause. I understand that you once had a friend who was allegedly molested as a child and grew up to be a molester. If that is true, that is a tragedy. But it has nothing to do with the institution of marriage. The class of people whom you seek to harm are not responsible for your friend's tragic life.

Sil has her imagination. Look through this thread. Read all of her predictions on what the Windsor ruling 'really meant' and how the Obergefell decision was going to back the States in banning same sex marriage.

Her imagination is an absolutely awful source on legal issues.

As for wasting her life, she currently has 51 threads on this topic. Each with dozens if not hundreds of pages of Sil's bizarre pseudo-legal rants. She's created an entire website dedicated to this topic where she begs for donations to fight same sex marriage. She's even created her own message board on yuku where she is the only member and the only participant. Where she's created 29 additional threads on this same topic, talking only to herself.

Sil has even posted how she has to stop, how this obsession is damaging her physical and emotional health. How its damaging her personal life.

But she can't stop. Her obsession has only gotten much, much worse.

 

[mdk]

Another day, another church not being forced to marry any couple against their wishes.

 

[Skylar]

The only thing you have shown us, Silhouette, is that you don't know anything about contract law. Your entire argument is bogus.

We'll see if it is or not. Time will tell. No worries if it's tested in the appellate system, right?

And where's that test case? Do you have a citation? The Ferber case that you cite all the time holds that child pornography is not protected under the First Amendment. That's not a contract law case. You're wasting hours of your life and investing emotional energy into a non-existent cause. .

We'll see... The case will probably be between a catholic adoption agency on behalf of the children vs whatever gay duo is trying to force them to disgorge orphans to them because they are "married".. That's the most likely scenario.

You said the same thing about Windsor. The same thing on the relationship of the Loving decision with same sex marriage. The same thing with the stays granted Utah on federal court rulings overturning same sex marriage laws. The same thing about Obergefell. The same thing about Kim Davis' appeal.

You're always wrong when predicting legal outcomes, Sil. Your record of failure in making legal predictions is absolutely and pristinely perfect.

But using the exact same debunked process of citing your imagination that has failed you every time you've used it..... is somehow going to produce different results this time?

You may want to look at Einstein's definition of 'insanity'.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil has even posted how she has to stop, how this obsession is damaging her physical and emotional health. How its damaging her personal life.

But she can't stop. Her obsession has only gotten much, much worse.

I'm not the one with 21,000+ posts pal...lol...

And Skylar, if you can apply Loving v Virginia which was about race, to your deviant sex cult, which is about behavior, then lawyers can apply New York vs Ferber 1982 to Obergefell and the lingering question of "is it a protected civil right for any adult to contractually deprive a child of either a mother or father for life?" New York vs Ferber says "NO"..

 

[mdk]

Sil has even posted how she has to stop, how this obsession is damaging her physical and emotional health. How its damaging her personal life.

But she can't stop. Her obsession has only gotten much, much worse.

I'm not the one with 21,000+ posts pal...lol...

And Skylar, if you can apply Loving v Virginia which was about race, to your deviant sex cult, which is about behavior, then lawyers can apply New York vs Ferber 1982 to Obergefell and the lingering question of "is it a protected civil right for any adult to contractually deprive a child of either a mother or father for life?" New York vs Ferber says "NO"..

Unless you're a single parent and than you're allowed ignore that standard. Where does Ferber mention hope? Or marriage for that matter? It doesn't. That is why your legal prediction record is such shit. You invite laws and findings then demand everyone is bound by them. No, we're not. Sorry.

You have 12,600ish posts. I bet 12,300 of those posts are you smearing and whining about queers. lol

 

[Skylar]

Sil has even posted how she has to stop, how this obsession is damaging her physical and emotional health. How its damaging her personal life.

But she can't stop. Her obsession has only gotten much, much worse.

I'm not the one with 21,000+ posts pal...lol...

Smiling....are you including your posts on the other message board that you created and dedicated solely to your obsession on gays....you know, the one where you are the only participant and have started 29 threads on gays where you talk to yourself?

And are you including your website you dedicated to the topic of gays where you offer disjointed, confused rants about homosexuals before begging for donations?

And Skylar, if you can apply Loving v Virginia which was about race, to your deviant sex cult, which is about behavior, then lawyers can apply New York vs Ferber 1982 to Obergefell and the lingering question of "is it a protected civil right for any adult to contractually deprive a child of either a mother or father for life?" New York vs Ferber says "NO"..

Show us anywhere in Ferber where gay marriage is even mentioned. I'll make it easy for you: where marriage is even mentioned. Or contracts. Or any of your inane babble.

Remember, Sil.....just because you imagine nonsense doesn't mean reality changes to match. Its the reason why every legal prediction you've ever made has been wrong; you can't distinguish between your imagination and the law. The courts use the actual law. Not your imagination.

 

[Silhouette]

Unless you're a single parent and than you're allowed ignore that standard.

Single parents aren't contractually binding their children away from either a father or mother for life. In fact, the incentives states give to marrieds entices single parents to find the missing mother or father for the sake of children within their borders.

Gay marriage, in contrast, binds away as a matter of law either a mother or father for life in any children implicitly involved in the contractual situation.

 

[Skylar]

Unless you're a single parent and than you're allowed ignore that standard.

Single parents aren't contractually binding their children away from either a father or mother for life.

Neither are same sex parents. Remember, your babble about the marriage of parents creating a minor contract for their children....is pseudo-legal gibberish. No law nor court recognizes any of what you made up.

You making up pseudo-legal nonsense that the law doesn't recognize.....that isn't a legal argument.

By your own standards, single parenthood creates every 'ill' that insist same sex marriage does. Worse, single parenthood is far, far more common...by orders of magnitude. Creating a much larger problem for society by your own argument.

But since you *were* a single mother, you give them a pass. Bizarrely imagining that 'hope' of a mother and a father is the same thing as a mother and a father.

Um, no. Its not. You fail even your own standards.

 

[Silhouette]

Unless you're a single parent and than you're allowed ignore that standard.

Single parents aren't contractually binding their children away from either a father or mother for life.

Neither are same sex parents.
.

Uh, yeah....they are actually. Do you think you can now remake language and physical reality with your payroll LGBT gaslighting online?

Even if gays were WHOLLY UNAWARE that their physical makeup deprives a child of either a mother or father for life, any contract they draw up which OTHERS discover deprives a child of either a mother or father for life, as a legal bind, is void. If anyone notices mental abuse states are obligated by law to investigate and rule out this mental harm without prejudice to any expectations of the outcome of such an investigation. In other words "frivolous" child abuse accusations don't exist. They are all serious and legally requiring of an investigation. It isn't optional:

Are States Legally Obligated to Defy Obergefell (2015)? Silhouette vs the 50 States.

 

[Skylar]

Unless you're a single parent and than you're allowed ignore that standard.

Single parents aren't contractually binding their children away from either a father or mother for life.

Neither are same sex parents.
.

Uh, yeah....they are actually.

They really aren't. Remember, your babble about the marriage of parents creating a minor contract for their children....is pseudo-legal gibberish. No law nor court recognizes any of what you made up.

And you know it. Which is why you carefully omitted the fact that no law nor court has ever backed your pseudo-legal gibberish from your reply.

Do you think you can now remake language and physical reality with your payroll LGBT gaslighting online?

If you're interested in 'definitions', show us any law or court recognizing a marriage of parents as a minor contract for their children.

You can't. As you are literally making that up. ANd your imagination has no legal relevance.

Even if gays were WHOLLY UNAWARE that their physical makeup deprives a child of either a mother or father for life, any contract they draw up which OTHERS discover deprives a child of either a mother or father for life, as a legal bind, is OBLIGATED to have states investigate this mental harm:

Are States Legally Obligated to Defy Obergefell (2015)? Silhouette vs the 50 States.

Save of course that none of your pseudo-legal 'obligations' exist either.

Remember, Sil....you making shit up isn't a legal argument. Nor is anyone bound to the crazy shit you imagine. As same sex marriage being recognized in 50 of 50 States demonstrates.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Debra K]

The only thing you have shown us, Silhouette, is that you don't know anything about contract law. Your entire argument is bogus.

We'll see if it is or not. Time will tell. No worries if it's tested in the appellate system, right?

And where's that test case? Do you have a citation? The Ferber case that you cite all the time holds that child pornography is not protected under the First Amendment. That's not a contract law case. You're wasting hours of your life and investing emotional energy into a non-existent cause. I understand that you once had a friend who was allegedly molested as a child and grew up to be a molester. If that is true, that is a tragedy. But it has nothing to do with the institution of marriage. The class of people whom you seek to harm are not responsible for your friend's tragic life.

Sil has her imagination. Look through this thread. Read all of her predictions on what the Windsor ruling 'really meant' and how the Obergefell decision was going to back the States in banning same sex marriage.

Her imagination is an absolutely awful source on legal issues.

As for wasting her life, she currently has 51 threads on this topic. Each with dozens if not hundreds of pages of Sil's bizarre pseudo-legal rants. She's created an entire website dedicated to this topic where she begs for donations to fight same sex marriage. She's even created her own message board on yuku where she is the only member and the only participant. Where she's created 29 additional threads on this same topic, talking only to herself.

Sil has even posted how she has to stop, how this obsession is damaging her physical and emotional health. How its damaging her personal life.

But she can't stop. Her obsession has only gotten much, much worse.

I saw a previous thread where you linked to Sil's website and/or message board. I took a few moments and browsed and she told about her friend and her dire need for money because she spends most of her day on this single issue. I believe it's an unhealthy obsession and an unjustifiable desire to harm people she doesn't even know, apparently to avenge the death of someone she once loved (or probably still loves). The people she seeks to harm weren't even responsible for her "friend's" purported tragic life and death. And her legal theory has no basis in law, it's entirely frivolous. But that doesn't stop her from deluding herself that she alone has stumbled upon the "magic bullet" that will deprive an entire class of people of a fundamental right. Personally, I think her life's ambitions and emotional energy would be better spent elsewhere. Perhaps she likes the attention she gets from posting the same deluded message 51 times on this board. Don't know, but I think she would be making progress if she started a thread in another forum asking knowledgeable members to educate her on basic contract law. The study of real law (not the stuff she conjures up in her imagination) might be something she finds fulfilling.

 

[Inevitable]

The church can't force their ideals on anyone. But Gays CAN. Explain that to me, the disconnect here?

Well they can so long as a democrat or "gay marriage is beautiful" Trump aren't in the Whitehouse. Obergefell can and will get revisited. The children having no say about being separated as a matter of binding contract from either a mother or father for life thing...that's not going away. Neither is the Kim Davis issue.

The premise the Court started with was false. Behavior is not = to race. That's where the problem began.. You can't use PA laws to force upon Christians that which is nothing other than Rainbow Cult dogma..

Kim's issue was resolved. Government cannot respect religion. The issue was she just didn't like her job any more.

 

[Syriusly]

The only thing you have shown us, Silhouette, is that you don't know anything about contract law. Your entire argument is bogus.

We'll see if it is or not. Time will tell. No worries if it's tested in the appellate system, right?

"Time will tell"

This thread started almost 2 years ago- and still not a single church has been forced to marry anyone it doesn't want to marry.

No one has even tried to force a church to do so.

Time is telling- and it is telling us this is just another stupid homophobic claim.

 

[Syriusly]

[
We'll see... The case will probably be between a catholic adoption agency on behalf of the children vs whatever gay duo is trying to force them to disgorge orphans to them because they are "married".. That's the most likely scenario.

Yet since 'gay marriage' was legalized in Massachusetts over 10 years ago- that scenario has not happened.

Apparently it is not a very likely scenario.

 

[Syriusly]

Unless you're a single parent and than you're allowed ignore that standard.

Single parents aren't contractually binding their children away from either a father or mother for life.

Neither are same sex parents.
.

Uh, yeah....they are actually. .

No- they actually aren't.

Just because you keep repeating that BS doesn't make it true.

This is all about "Gay" to you.

The children of single parents are deprived of an opposite gender parent exactly the same as the children of two gay parents.

Yet all you care about is denying the children of gay parents- married parents.

Where are your threads suggesting solutions for the millions- millions of children of single parents who are lacking that opposite gender parent in their lives?

Not one thread.

You don't give a damn about kids- and never have.

 

[Skylar]

The only thing you have shown us, Silhouette, is that you don't know anything about contract law. Your entire argument is bogus.

We'll see if it is or not. Time will tell. No worries if it's tested in the appellate system, right?

And where's that test case? Do you have a citation? The Ferber case that you cite all the time holds that child pornography is not protected under the First Amendment. That's not a contract law case. You're wasting hours of your life and investing emotional energy into a non-existent cause. I understand that you once had a friend who was allegedly molested as a child and grew up to be a molester. If that is true, that is a tragedy. But it has nothing to do with the institution of marriage. The class of people whom you seek to harm are not responsible for your friend's tragic life.

Sil has her imagination. Look through this thread. Read all of her predictions on what the Windsor ruling 'really meant' and how the Obergefell decision was going to back the States in banning same sex marriage.

Her imagination is an absolutely awful source on legal issues.

As for wasting her life, she currently has 51 threads on this topic. Each with dozens if not hundreds of pages of Sil's bizarre pseudo-legal rants. She's created an entire website dedicated to this topic where she begs for donations to fight same sex marriage. She's even created her own message board on yuku where she is the only member and the only participant. Where she's created 29 additional threads on this same topic, talking only to herself.

Sil has even posted how she has to stop, how this obsession is damaging her physical and emotional health. How its damaging her personal life.

But she can't stop. Her obsession has only gotten much, much worse.

I saw a previous thread where you linked to Sil's website and/or message board. I took a few moments and browsed and she told about her friend and her dire need for money because she spends most of her day on this single issue. I believe it's an unhealthy obsession and an unjustifiable desire to harm people she doesn't even know, apparently to avenge the death of someone she once loved (or probably still loves).

Sil herself has made the best argument that her obsession is unhealthy. Telling us that she needs to quit, that its hurting her physically and emotionally. That its damaging her personal life.

Yet here she is. Not only present....but vastly expanding her service to her addiction.

In her defense, she's recently disabled and had a recent death in her family. The two tend to push idiosyncracies to full on obsessive compulsions.

The people she seeks to harm weren't even responsible for her "friend's" purported tragic life and death. And her legal theory has no basis in law, it's entirely frivolous.\

Completely. But she knows that. And she know we know that.

The entire purpose of these threads are for Sil to suck a thumb. Its soothing to her to repeat the same comfortable lies, over and over. The fact that everyone knows she's completely full of shit has no bearing on repetition soothing the dissonance caused by reality not matching her assumptions.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The only thing you have shown us, Silhouette, is that you don't know anything about contract law. Your entire argument is bogus.

We'll see if it is or not. Time will tell. No worries if it's tested in the appellate system, right?

And where's that test case? Do you have a citation? The Ferber case that you cite all the time holds that child pornography is not protected under the First Amendment. That's not a contract law case. You're wasting hours of your life and investing emotional energy into a non-existent cause. I understand that you once had a friend who was allegedly molested as a child and grew up to be a molester. If that is true, that is a tragedy. But it has nothing to do with the institution of marriage. The class of people whom you seek to harm are not responsible for your friend's tragic life.

Sil has her imagination. Look through this thread. Read all of her predictions on what the Windsor ruling 'really meant' and how the Obergefell decision was going to back the States in banning same sex marriage.

Her imagination is an absolutely awful source on legal issues.

As for wasting her life, she currently has 51 threads on this topic. Each with dozens if not hundreds of pages of Sil's bizarre pseudo-legal rants. She's created an entire website dedicated to this topic where she begs for donations to fight same sex marriage. She's even created her own message board on yuku where she is the only member and the only participant. Where she's created 29 additional threads on this same topic, talking only to herself.

Sil has even posted how she has to stop, how this obsession is damaging her physical and emotional health. How its damaging her personal life.

But she can't stop. Her obsession has only gotten much, much worse.

I saw a previous thread where you linked to Sil's website and/or message board. I took a few moments and browsed and she told about her friend and her dire need for money because she spends most of her day on this single issue. I believe it's an unhealthy obsession and an unjustifiable desire to harm people she doesn't even know, apparently to avenge the death of someone she once loved (or probably still loves). The people she seeks to harm weren't even responsible for her "friend's" purported tragic life and death. And her legal theory has no basis in law, it's entirely frivolous. But that doesn't stop her from deluding herself that she alone has stumbled upon the "magic bullet" that will deprive an entire class of people of a fundamental right. Personally, I think her life's ambitions and emotional energy would be better spent elsewhere. Perhaps she likes the attention she gets from posting the same deluded message 51 times on this board. Don't know, but I think she would be making progress if she started a thread in another forum asking knowledgeable members to educate her on basic contract law. The study of real law (not the stuff she conjures up in her imagination) might be something she finds fulfilling.

Silly should probably be involuntarily committed to a secure mental health facility for her own safety.

 

[Skylar]

The only thing you have shown us, Silhouette, is that you don't know anything about contract law. Your entire argument is bogus.

We'll see if it is or not. Time will tell. No worries if it's tested in the appellate system, right?

And where's that test case? Do you have a citation? The Ferber case that you cite all the time holds that child pornography is not protected under the First Amendment. That's not a contract law case. You're wasting hours of your life and investing emotional energy into a non-existent cause. I understand that you once had a friend who was allegedly molested as a child and grew up to be a molester. If that is true, that is a tragedy. But it has nothing to do with the institution of marriage. The class of people whom you seek to harm are not responsible for your friend's tragic life.

Sil has her imagination. Look through this thread. Read all of her predictions on what the Windsor ruling 'really meant' and how the Obergefell decision was going to back the States in banning same sex marriage.

Her imagination is an absolutely awful source on legal issues.

As for wasting her life, she currently has 51 threads on this topic. Each with dozens if not hundreds of pages of Sil's bizarre pseudo-legal rants. She's created an entire website dedicated to this topic where she begs for donations to fight same sex marriage. She's even created her own message board on yuku where she is the only member and the only participant. Where she's created 29 additional threads on this same topic, talking only to herself.

Sil has even posted how she has to stop, how this obsession is damaging her physical and emotional health. How its damaging her personal life.

But she can't stop. Her obsession has only gotten much, much worse.

I saw a previous thread where you linked to Sil's website and/or message board. I took a few moments and browsed and she told about her friend and her dire need for money because she spends most of her day on this single issue. I believe it's an unhealthy obsession and an unjustifiable desire to harm people she doesn't even know, apparently to avenge the death of someone she once loved (or probably still loves). The people she seeks to harm weren't even responsible for her "friend's" purported tragic life and death. And her legal theory has no basis in law, it's entirely frivolous. But that doesn't stop her from deluding herself that she alone has stumbled upon the "magic bullet" that will deprive an entire class of people of a fundamental right. Personally, I think her life's ambitions and emotional energy would be better spent elsewhere. Perhaps she likes the attention she gets from posting the same deluded message 51 times on this board. Don't know, but I think she would be making progress if she started a thread in another forum asking knowledgeable members to educate her on basic contract law. The study of real law (not the stuff she conjures up in her imagination) might be something she finds fulfilling.

Silly should probably be involuntarily committed to a secure mental health facility for her own safety.

Its been a while since you joined us on one of Sil's batshit threads. Since then, its gotten so much worse.

She's created her own website on the topic where she begs for donations for her fight against gays.

She created her own messageboard on yuku where she currently has 29 active threads on gays and sam sex marriage......where she is the only participant, talking to and responding to herself.

Along with 52 threads on this board with dozens if not hundreds of pages of Sil's elaborate pseudo-legal gibberish.