A Child Can't Call 2 Women or 2 Men "Mom & Dad"

[Conservative65]

I was checking consistently of those who say we have the person because we dislike homosexuality. They say there is no difference and if we hate the act, we hate the person because the person committed the act. I suspect most, if not all, of them would say that it's easy to distinguish between the wrongful act their child does and the child itself. To that I would ask why they don't believe those who think homosexuality is wrong can do the same when it comes to the person.

.

They can and they do, all the time.

The gay rights crowd constantly maintains that if you think homosexuality is wrong it means hating homosexuals. Yet, they say they can distinguish between the person and the action on all sorts of things. I guess they think homosexuality is the only where that distinction can be made.

 

[Silhouette]

Either way, a child needs someone to call mom and someone to call dad in a marriage. Institutionalizing the lack of either one of those is a form of psychological child abuse by society at large...more particularly I suspect, 5 Justices in DC by the time June rolls around.

To have this Hearing without a full consideration of all the points made in the OP here is negligent child abuse.

 

[Skylar]

Either way, a child needs someone to call mom and someone to call dad in a marriage.

And how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? It doesn't. Its not like denying marriage to a lesbian couple suddenly means that their children have opposite sex parents.

Your 'problem' (same sex parents) has nothing to do with your solution (denying same sex marriage). As you don't need to be married to have kids. Nor does marriage change the gender of your parents.

Making your demands not only pointless, but bizarrely so.

Institutionalizing the lack of either one of those is a form of psychological child abuse by society at large...more particularly I suspect, 5 Justices in DC by the time June rolls around.

Oh my. Another escalation of hysterics! Now same sex marriage is psychological child abuse. So two unmarried lesbians raising their children somehow transform into two married lesbians who are psychologicaslly absuing their children......if we allow them to marry?

How does that work exactly? Does the expanded access to healthcare for the children that constitute the psychological abuse? Is it the lack of humiliation for these children that's the psychological abuse? Is it the increase in family security that is the psychological abuse?

Because from where I'm sitting, its the same parenting the day before their parents get married as the day after.

Is....is it possible that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about?

 

[Silhouette]

The question weighs much larger for society by a Hearing that at its end would mandate the institution of fatherless sons and motherless daughters across all 50 states without permission or input from the Governed.

This Hearing as the Justices well know, isn't about a handful of kids being raised in experimental parenting situations. It's about a standard to be set forever, affecting the entirety society at its core in a way we can predict would be detrimental. It's about using kids as lab rats in an untried social experiment that data already shows us is a train wreck waiting to happen to the kids and by extension over time, the society they will grow to lord over and govern "as they were raised to do". Have you read the OP & its links? Or are you here just to regurgitate your lavender talking points and keep the focus off of what's really at stake here?

 

[Montrovant]

The question weighs much larger for society by a Hearing that at its end would mandate the institution of fatherless sons and motherless daughters across all 50 states without permission or input from the Governed.

This Hearing as the Justices well know, isn't about a handful of kids being raised in experimental parenting situations. It's about a standard to be set forever, affecting the entirety society at its core in a way we can predict would be detrimental. It's about using kids as lab rats in an untried social experiment that data already shows us is a train wreck waiting to happen to the kids and by extension over time, the society they will grow to lord over and govern "as they were raised to do". Have you read the OP & its links? Or are you here just to regurgitate your lavender talking points and keep the focus off of what's really at stake here?

Is the data you speak of the Prince's Trust Youth Index you regularly misquote, misinterpret and lie about?

Kids are already being raised in many different parental situations. Homosexuals are a relatively small percentage of the population, so there will only be so many same sex marriages. There's no reason any ruling made by the USSC is going to be set in stone for all time; either a future court might disagree with whatever ruling they make or an amendment could be passed. For that matter, it's not as though this country is eternal. As to 'affecting the entire society at its core', how exactly would allowing same sex marriage do that? Would such a ruling spur the nation's youth to suddenly change sexual orientation en masse? Would people opposed to same sex marriage be unable to maintain their moral opposition based on a court decision? Did the states which have legalized same sex marriage suddenly change at their cores?

Or are you here just to regurgitate your anti-gay talking points and cry wolf at the top of your lungs about what's really at stake here?

 

[Skylar]

The question weighs much larger for society by a Hearing that at its end would mandate the institution of fatherless sons and motherless daughters across all 50 states without permission or input from the Governed.

The question is how does denying marriage to same sex couple help....anyone? We already know all the enormous harms it causes the couple. We already know the immediate legal harms it causes children. And even opponents of same sex marriage like Sil can't name one way that denying same sex marriage benefits either.

By Sil's own admission, denying marriage to same sex couples doesn't benefit anyone. And hurts both same sex parents and their children.

Which begs the question, why would we ever implement a policy that helps no one and harms millions?

Its one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.

 

[Skylar]

The question weighs much larger for society by a Hearing that at its end would mandate the institution of fatherless sons and motherless daughters across all 50 states without permission or input from the Governed.

This Hearing as the Justices well know, isn't about a handful of kids being raised in experimental parenting situations. It's about a standard to be set forever, affecting the entirety society at its core in a way we can predict would be detrimental. It's about using kids as lab rats in an untried social experiment that data already shows us is a train wreck waiting to happen to the kids and by extension over time, the society they will grow to lord over and govern "as they were raised to do". Have you read the OP & its links? Or are you here just to regurgitate your lavender talking points and keep the focus off of what's really at stake here?

Is the data you speak of the Prince's Trust Youth Index you regularly misquote, misinterpret and lie about?

Exactly. The Prince Trust Youth Index never mentions gays, gay marriage, gay parenting nor measures the effect of any kind of parenting. Nor does it say that a positive same sex role model can only be a parent.

These are all assumptions made by Sil based on nothing. Which he bizarrely expects the USSC to accept as fact use as the basis of their ruling.

Um, no. Sil's assumptions are not evidence.

 

[Silhouette]

The Prince's Trust never metions okapis or wallabys either. Yet we can assume that the study also concludes that if children grow up with two okapis and no parent the same gender as themselves, or two wallabys not the same gender as themselves, the results are the same.

The point is, if two gays don't provide the necessary gender to the child, the study fits gay marriage. You may really really badly not want that to be true, but it doesn't change things.

 

[Montrovant]

The Prince's Trust never metions okapis or wallabys either. Yet we can assume that the study also concludes that if children grow up with two okapis and no parent the same gender as themselves, or two wallabys not the same gender as themselves, the results are the same.

The point is, if two gays don't provide the necessary gender to the child, the study fits gay marriage. You may really really badly not want that to be true, but it doesn't change things.

Except that isn't true. The study doesn't specify who the positive same gender role models discussed can be. So siblings, uncles, teachers, nannies, grandparents, etc. could all be same gender role models. The study doesn't say whether the children who grew up without positive same gender role models had two opposite sex parents, a single parent, or grew up without parents at all. The study doesn't show causality, either. The Youth Index isn't even about same gender role models. That is merely one factor in the overall happiness of the survey participants which was asked about in one year. The Youth Index seems to find that being employed, training, or getting an education are the most important factors in a youth's happiness, actually. So your constant touting of the one Index as some sort of definitive proof of your point remains silly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The question weighs much larger for society by a Hearing that at its end would mandate the institution of fatherless sons and motherless daughters across all 50 states without permission or input from the Governed.

This Hearing as the Justices well know, isn't about a handful of kids being raised in experimental parenting situations. It's about a standard to be set forever, affecting the entirety society at its core in a way we can predict would be detrimental. It's about using kids as lab rats in an untried social experiment that data already shows us is a train wreck waiting to happen to the kids and by extension over time, the society they will grow to lord over and govern "as they were raised to do". Have you read the OP & its links? Or are you here just to regurgitate your lavender talking points and keep the focus off of what's really at stake here?

Your study is irrelevant. That's what you need to get through your head.

 

[Silhouette]

The question weighs much larger for society by a Hearing that at its end would mandate the institution of fatherless sons and motherless daughters across all 50 states without permission or input from the Governed.

This Hearing as the Justices well know, isn't about a handful of kids being raised in experimental parenting situations. It's about a standard to be set forever, affecting the entirety society at its core in a way we can predict would be detrimental. It's about using kids as lab rats in an untried social experiment that data already shows us is a train wreck waiting to happen to the kids and by extension over time, the society they will grow to lord over and govern "as they were raised to do". Have you read the OP & its links? Or are you here just to regurgitate your lavender talking points and keep the focus off of what's really at stake here?

Your study is irrelevant. That's what you need to get through your head.

I'm pretty sure the British Government is responsible for the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of it's kind (link in the OP). Not me.

But thanks for thinking I'm that important...lol..

 

[mdk]

The question weighs much larger for society by a Hearing that at its end would mandate the institution of fatherless sons and motherless daughters across all 50 states without permission or input from the Governed.

This Hearing as the Justices well know, isn't about a handful of kids being raised in experimental parenting situations. It's about a standard to be set forever, affecting the entirety society at its core in a way we can predict would be detrimental. It's about using kids as lab rats in an untried social experiment that data already shows us is a train wreck waiting to happen to the kids and by extension over time, the society they will grow to lord over and govern "as they were raised to do". Have you read the OP & its links? Or are you here just to regurgitate your lavender talking points and keep the focus off of what's really at stake here?

Your study is irrelevant. That's what you need to get through your head.

I'm pretty sure the British Government is responsible for the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of it's kind (link in the OP). Not me.

But thanks for thinking I'm that important...lol..

Your wild interpretations of this study have nothing to do with the British Government. You've made up the findings to fit narrow anti-gay narrative.

 

[Skylar]

Exactly. The actual Prince Trust study makes no mention of gays, gay marriage, same sex parenting, or measures the effects of any kind of parenting. In fact, every time they cite a specific case of a child not having a same sex role model, they cite SINGLE parents.

Never once did the Prince Trust Study cite a single bad outcome of same sex parenting.

A point that Sil knows. But really hopes we don't.

 

[Silhouette]

Your wild interpretations of this study have nothing to do with the British Government. You've made up the findings to fit narrow anti-gay narrative.

Here is what is NOT a "wild interpretation". (Follow the logic)

1. The Prince's Trust survey, the largest of its kind, found that boys deprived fathers and girls deprived of mothers = harm to them in real, measurable, significant and tangible ways, possibly permanent ways.

2. A "gay marriage" 50% of the time will put either boys or girls directly in the peril of #1. (start back at #1 and read again until it gets through your thick head)

 

[mdk]

Your wild interpretations of this study have nothing to do with the British Government. You've made up the findings to fit narrow anti-gay narrative.

Here is what is NOT a "wild interpretation". (Follow the logic)

1. The Prince's Trust survey, the largest of its kind, found that boys deprived fathers and girls deprived of mothers = harm to them in real, measurable, significant and tangible ways, possibly permanent ways.

2. A "gay marriage" 50% of the time will put either boys or girls directly in the peril of #1. (start back at #1 and read again until it gets through your thick head)

That isn't what the study found. That is what you claim the study finds despite the fact that it never once mentions gay parents, gay people, or even parenting. The study mentions a lack of role models and doesn't say that those role models can only be found in a parent. You are literally making this shit up as you go along.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know..........I was orphaned when I was 8, so I never really had a "father" or "mother" figure, I just had family that I called by their relation (Grandmother, Grandfather, Aunt, Uncle), and the role models that I needed to have I borrowed from my aunts and Grandparents.

It's not so much about having a "mom" or a "dad", it's about being raised by people who love you and care about teaching you wrong from right.

Additionally, for a couple of years while stationed in Norfolk, I rented a room from a lesbian couple who had a teenage daughter, and she had plenty of uncles and other male role models she could look to if she wanted to find out how men thought. And, because her mother and her mother's partner both loved her very much (they'd been together since the daughter was 5, and she was 14 when I met them), and she seemed to turn out okay. She liked what other teen girls liked and had boyfriends.

From what I saw with them, there were no ill effects on the child because she was living with a same sex parental couple.

 

[Silhouette]

"A biker-sailor" eh?

Makes you sound so "middle America". I'm sure the name wasn't hand-selected just for that reason. You are the exception. We are talking about the rule. We are talking about statistical preponderance to harm the most amount of children, and society itself over time by institutionalizing and forcing states to accept against their Will, fatherless sons and motherless daughters.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Actually, the reason that I selected "ABikerSailor" is because I was a cyclist for most of my life and owned a Harley Davidson for around 7 years, as well as spent 20 years serving in the US Navy.

And yeah.......in many cases I am the exception, but what about Tawnya, the daughter of the lesbian couple that I rented a room from for 2 years? She was pretty well adjusted and happy, and had plenty of positive male role models in her life.

 

[Syriusly]

"A biker-sailor" eh?

Makes you sound so "middle America". I'm sure the name wasn't hand-selected just for that reason. You are the exception. We are talking about the rule. We are talking about statistical preponderance to harm the most amount of children, and society itself over time by institutionalizing and forcing states to accept against their Will, fatherless sons and motherless daughters.

No- 'we' aren't talking about any such thing.

This thread is about something entirely differently.

You however, as usual, just include all of your usual anti-homosexual propaganda.

Why exactly do you so despise the children of homosexuals that you want to prevent their parents from marrying?

 

[Silhouette]

Idiot.