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

[Silhouette]

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.

Here's the reach you are going for. Let's say we all just read a study, the largest of its kind, that says "65% of white sharks love to eat seals that look like people swimming on the surface in a wetsuit." And then you would deduce from that conclusion that "all swimmers in wetsuits swimming in white shark infested waters need not worry because they aren't actually seals".

And so doing, you display what an unwise idiot you are.

The Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind, found that fatherless sons and motherless daughters suffer in statistically important and predictable ways. Gay marraige guarantees those conditions to 50% of the kids involved in them. Normal marriages guarantee 0% of those conditions. It's simple math and simple structural realities. Gender blending and role-playing is your thing, your cult value. Unfortunately that value doesn't translate directly into what is required in the best physical structure for parenting.
And,

I'll be you grew up with a mom and dad in your life. Yet you would use children in the new experiment like lab rats......which is yet another red flag on your cult...

 

[mdk]

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.

Here's the reach you are going for. Let's say we all just read a study, the largest of its kind, that says "65% of white sharks love to eat seals that look like people swimming on the surface in a wetsuit." And then you would deduce from that conclusion that "all swimmers in wetsuits swimming in white shark infested waters need not worry because they aren't actually seals".

And so doing, you display what an unwise idiot you are.

The Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind, found that fatherless sons and motherless daughters suffer in statistically important and predictable ways. Gay marraige guarantees those conditions to 50% of the kids involved in them. Normal marriages guarantee 0% of those conditions. It's simple math and simple structural realities. Gender blending and role-playing is your thing, your cult value. Unfortunately that value doesn't translate directly into what is required in the best physical structure for parenting.
And,

I'll be you grew up with a mom and dad in your life. Yet you would use children in the new experiment like lab rats......which is yet another red flag on your cult...

The fact that you have to continuously lie about the findings of the Prince's Trust only shows the desperation of your position. Gay people raising children isn't some "new experiment" as they have been raising children for many many years. Stopping gays from getting married doesn't magically make these children have two different sex parents, it only stops them from having married parents. Is this the odd part now where you mention wolves? lol

 

[Syriusly]

Idiot.

It is always so amusing when you post to yourself here at USMB.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Here's the reach you are going for. Let's say we all just read a study, the largest of its kind, that says "65% of white sharks love to eat seals that look like people swimming on the surface in a wetsuit." And then you would deduce from that conclusion that "all swimmers in wetsuits swimming in white shark infested waters need not worry because they aren't actually seals".

And so doing, you display what an unwise idiot you are.

The Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind, found that fatherless sons and motherless daughters suffer in statistically important and predictable ways. Gay marraige guarantees those conditions to 50% of the kids involved in them. Normal marriages guarantee 0% of those conditions. It's simple math and simple structural realities. Gender blending and role-playing is your thing, your cult value. Unfortunately that value doesn't translate directly into what is required in the best physical structure for parenting.
And,

I'll be you grew up with a mom and dad in your life. Yet you would use children in the new experiment like lab rats......which is yet another red flag on your cult...

Except that the survey, which you misquote, misinterpret and lie about, never said that the same gender role model must be a parent. A fatherless son might still have a positive same gender role model, making your point entirely incorrect.

Nor did the survey compare children in two parent households to one parent, nor households with no parents at all, nor same gender parents, etc. In fact, same gender role models isn't even the main focus of the Prince's Trust Youth Index. So far as I've seen, that particular factor in the overall well being of the youths surveyed has only been brought up in one iteration of the survey. Why do you think the Index focuses so much more on employment, education, and training than on the same gender role models you seem to think are the most important factor in a child's life?

 

[Silhouette]

Except that the survey, which you misquote, misinterpret and lie about, never said that the same gender role model must be a parent. A fatherless son might still have a positive same gender role model, making your point entirely incorrect.

Nor did the survey compare children in two parent households to one parent, nor households with no parents at all, nor same gender parents, etc. In fact, same gender role models isn't even the main focus of the Prince's Trust Youth Index. So far as I've seen, that particular factor in the overall well being of the youths surveyed has only been brought up in one iteration of the survey. Why do you think the Index focuses so much more on employment, education, and training than on the same gender role models you seem to think are the most important factor in a child's life?

The survey didn't have to do any of those things. It simply found that fatherless sons and motherless daughters were in statistical and predictable peril psychologically. Very gravely so with deep depression, drug addiction and even suicide ranking among the maladies for such a stunted childhood.

The PHYSICAL FACT of gay marriage is that 50% of the time, statistically, it guarantees to place children squarely in the danger foretold by the Prince's Trust Survey. Moreover, and even worse, whether there are two, three, or ten gay parents all getting close to the kids each day in their home, a more insidious damage lingers than just not having one's gender present as a daily role model. It is the IMPLIED DAILY MESSAGE that their gender doesn't matter in a functioning adult world. That is the cherry on top of the mind-fuck sundae.

It isn't, therefore, an exaggeration at all to say that Institutionalizing this environment as a federal-mandate across 50 states will go down in history as one of the most damaging blows to American society since the 1700s. And even more amazing that the blow will be dealt by just five ephemeral personalities in the US Supreme Court (two of which who are arrogantly biased about their "wisdom" on the topic) Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing Page 59 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

...against the Will of the governed, the very core of society itself that will be most heavily affected by the new experiment using kids as lab rats...

More amazing still, is that statistically the very people mandating that kids grow up in these statistically-harmful environments had a mother and father in their life.

 

[Skylar]

Except that the survey, which you misquote, misinterpret and lie about, never said that the same gender role model must be a parent. A fatherless son might still have a positive same gender role model, making your point entirely incorrect.

Nor did the survey compare children in two parent households to one parent, nor households with no parents at all, nor same gender parents, etc. In fact, same gender role models isn't even the main focus of the Prince's Trust Youth Index. So far as I've seen, that particular factor in the overall well being of the youths surveyed has only been brought up in one iteration of the survey. Why do you think the Index focuses so much more on employment, education, and training than on the same gender role models you seem to think are the most important factor in a child's life?

The survey didn't have to do any of those things. It simply found that fatherless sons and motherless daughters were in statistical and predictable peril psychologically. Very gravely so with deep depression, drug addiction and even suicide ranking among the maladies for such a stunted childhood.

It found no such thing. As it didn't indicate that a positive same sex role model had to be a parent. Nor did it say that a same sex parent was a positive same sex role model. You hallucinated both claims.

By your own admission, the Prince Trust Study doesn't measure any form of parenting.

You hallucinated your entire argument.

 

[Montrovant]

Except that the survey, which you misquote, misinterpret and lie about, never said that the same gender role model must be a parent. A fatherless son might still have a positive same gender role model, making your point entirely incorrect.

Nor did the survey compare children in two parent households to one parent, nor households with no parents at all, nor same gender parents, etc. In fact, same gender role models isn't even the main focus of the Prince's Trust Youth Index. So far as I've seen, that particular factor in the overall well being of the youths surveyed has only been brought up in one iteration of the survey. Why do you think the Index focuses so much more on employment, education, and training than on the same gender role models you seem to think are the most important factor in a child's life?

The survey didn't have to do any of those things. It simply found that fatherless sons and motherless daughters were in statistical and predictable peril psychologically. Very gravely so with deep depression, drug addiction and even suicide ranking among the maladies for such a stunted childhood.

The PHYSICAL FACT of gay marriage is that 50% of the time, statistically, it guarantees to place children squarely in the danger foretold by the Prince's Trust Survey. Moreover, and even worse, whether there are two, three, or ten gay parents all getting close to the kids each day in their home, a more insidious damage lingers than just not having one's gender present as a daily role model. It is the IMPLIED DAILY MESSAGE that their gender doesn't matter in a functioning adult world. That is the cherry on top of the mind-fuck sundae.

It isn't, therefore, an exaggeration at all to say that Institutionalizing this environment as a federal-mandate across 50 states will go down in history as one of the most damaging blows to American society since the 1700s. And even more amazing that the blow will be dealt by just five ephemeral personalities in the US Supreme Court (two of which who are arrogantly biased about their "wisdom" on the topic) Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing Page 59 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

...against the Will of the governed, the very core of society itself that will be most heavily affected by the new experiment using kids as lab rats...

More amazing still, is that statistically the very people mandating that kids grow up in these statistically-harmful environments had a mother and father in their life.

You have answered with yet another lie.

The survey did not state that only a parent can be a positive same gender role model. Nor did it state that all of those without positive same gender role models were without same gendered parents. If I am remembering correctly, there was a small example in which a young man talked about wishing he had had an older brother growing up to be a positive role model for him. The Youth Index does not say what you claim it does.

 

[Syriusly]

Except that the survey, which you misquote, misinterpret and lie about, never said that the same gender role model must be a parent. A fatherless son might still have a positive same gender role model, making your point entirely incorrect.

Nor did the survey compare children in two parent households to one parent, nor households with no parents at all, nor same gender parents, etc. In fact, same gender role models isn't even the main focus of the Prince's Trust Youth Index. So far as I've seen, that particular factor in the overall well being of the youths surveyed has only been brought up in one iteration of the survey. Why do you think the Index focuses so much more on employment, education, and training than on the same gender role models you seem to think are the most important factor in a child's life?

The PHYSICAL FACT of gay marriage is that 50% of the time, statistically, it guarantees to place children squarely in the danger.

No- just another lie by you.

Gay marriage doesn't change parenting at all- it just means that children being raised by gay parents have married parents.
Preventing gay marriage just ensures that if that couple does have children- their children will not have married parents.

Why do you hate the children of homosexuals?

Or do you just hate homosexuals so much, you are willing to target their children to injure homosexuals?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Having a father and a mother does not guarantee anything for a child.

Having spent part of my childhood where my mother was married to 2 abusive men, I can definitely counter that point.

It doesn't really matter what gender the parents are, just that they love and care for the child. And...........in many cases, the parent will notice the child's need for a positive role model, either male or female, and encourage that relationship. It doesn't have to be a parent, it can be an aunt, uncle, grandparent, etc., or even a family friend.

Also, speaking as someone who was orphaned at 8, if you really want to find a positive role model to follow, you will. I know that there were several positive role models (of both genders), that were in my life and helped me to figure things out.

 

[Silhouette]

Well then if a brother and sister are loving parents together, your logic means they can and should get legally married. Why wouldn't we let them? Probably because of how harmful inbreeding is for kids.

And once again we return to the main demographic in this conversation: children.

 

[Skylar]

Well then if a brother and sister are loving parents together, your logic means they can and should get legally married. Why wouldn't we let them? Probably because of how harmful inbreeding is for kids.

And once again we return to the main demographic in this conversation: children.

And how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

Specifically.

You've never once been able to cite a single benefit to these children. While the courts have elaborately listed all the harms denying marriage to same sex parents causes their children.

So....why would we ever do this to this kids?

 

[mdk]

Well then if a brother and sister are loving parents together, your logic means they can and should get legally married. Why wouldn't we let them? Probably because of how harmful inbreeding is for kids.

And once again we return to the main demographic in this conversation: children.

And how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

Specifically.

You've never once been able to cite a single benefit to these children. While the courts have elaborately listed all the harms denying marriage to same sex parents causes their children.

So....why would we ever do this to this kids?

Be prepared for Sil to either run away or offer a red herring. She has never attempted to answer this question b/c she either doesn't care or doesn't have a valid answer. My guess is both.

 

[Skylar]

Well then if a brother and sister are loving parents together, your logic means they can and should get legally married. Why wouldn't we let them? Probably because of how harmful inbreeding is for kids.

And once again we return to the main demographic in this conversation: children.

And how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

Specifically.

You've never once been able to cite a single benefit to these children. While the courts have elaborately listed all the harms denying marriage to same sex parents causes their children.

So....why would we ever do this to this kids?

Be prepared for Sil to either run away or offer a red herring. She has never attempted to answer this question b/c she either doesn't care or doesn't have a valid answer. My guess is both.

Sil really has no choice. His proposals only hurt children. They don't benefit them in any way. And he knows it. Which is why when pressed for the benefits of denying same sex parents marriage, he runs.

There's really nothing else he can do but try and change the topic.

 

[Silhouette]

Well then if a brother and sister are loving parents together, your logic means they can and should get legally married. Why wouldn't we let them? Probably because of how harmful inbreeding is for kids.

And once again we return to the main demographic in this conversation: children.

And how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

Specifically.

You've never once been able to cite a single benefit to these children. While the courts have elaborately listed all the harms denying marriage to same sex parents causes their children.

So....why would we ever do this to this kids?

The question never has been about kids caught up today in gay lifestyles. The question is and has always been, and MUST BE about ALL children throughout time...how ALL OF THEM will be affected by institutionalizing an experiment of fatherless sons and motherless daughters that we already know from the Prince's Trust Survey is doomed to failure.

 

[Skylar]

Well then if a brother and sister are loving parents together, your logic means they can and should get legally married. Why wouldn't we let them? Probably because of how harmful inbreeding is for kids.

And once again we return to the main demographic in this conversation: children.

And how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

Specifically.

You've never once been able to cite a single benefit to these children. While the courts have elaborately listed all the harms denying marriage to same sex parents causes their children.

So....why would we ever do this to this kids?

The question never has been about kids caught up today in gay lifestyles.

And by 'kids caught up in gay lifestyle', you mean children whose parents are gay and lesbian?

At least you're admitting now that you don't give a fiddler's fuck about the children of same sex parents. As exactly as predicted, you're ignoring them entirely. Why?

Because your proposals only HURT these children. And do not benefit them in any way. By the tens of thousands. Making them useless to you in your campaign to hurt gays. As the only child you care about is the one you can use.

The question is and has always been, and MUST BE about ALL children throughout time...how ALL OF THEM will be affected by institutionalizing an experiment of fatherless sons and motherless daughters that we already know from the Prince's Trust Survey is doomed to failure.

Gays and lesbians have kids. How does denying them marriage change that?

It doesn't. Your 'solution' has nothing to do with your problem. Worse, your 'solution' actually hurts children by the tens of thousands. And you're perfectly cool with it as long as it also hurts gays.

And of course the Prince Trust study doesn't say anything you did. It doesn't measure the effects of any kind of parenting, doesn't even mentions gays, gay parents or gay parenting. You're literally just making shit up.

 

[Silhouette]

Brothers and sisters also have kids together. How does denying them marriage help their kids?

Polygamists also have kids. How does denying them marriage help their kids?

In both examples the conditions of those poor children do not justify sentencing the rest of children born into time unknown into foolish and damaging environments that aren't healthy for them.

A boy growing up without a father isn't healthy. How will two lesbians provide him with a father and a sense of belonging in a functioning adult world? A girl growing up without a mother isn't healthy. How will two gay men provide her with a mother and a sense of belonging in a functioning adult world?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SILHOUETTE SAID:

“Brothers and sisters also have kids together. How does denying them marriage help their kids?
Polygamists also have kids. How does denying them marriage help their kids?”

Clearly you understand neither the law or the issue.

Or you seek to confuse the issue with red herring fallacies such as those quoted above.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, brothers and sisters, three or more persons, not.

Consequently, brothers and sisters and 'polygamists' are not being 'denied' marriage because marriage law does not accommodate such unions – there cannot be a 14th Amendment civil rights 'violation' with regard to a class of persons for whom no law exists.

Marriage is the union of two consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state; same- or opposite-sex. Brothers and sisters and 'polygamists' aren't being denied marriage because of who they are, as is the case with same-sex couples, they're simply not eligible to enter into such contracts.

 

[Silhouette]

No, Skylar is offering up the red herring of "if we don't allow gays to marry it will hurt kids". The fact is that allowing gays to marry will hurt kids....VASTLY MORE OF THEM than not allowing them to marry and "become father and mother"...a thing they can never do. It is physically impossible.

Marriage is about children. If it wasn't, no state would have reason to incentivize it. Therefore, marriage is between a consenting man and a consenting woman. No other situation cuts the muster, unless a foolish state in democratic rule wants to try the new experiment with kids you propose, using them as lab rats in something that none of the proponents even had to endure.

For instance, I'll wager you had access to both a mother and father figure in your life...

 

[Skylar]

Brothers and sisters also have kids together. How does denying them marriage help their kids?

Polygamists also have kids. How does denying them marriage help their kids?

When their cases come up in court, we'll discuss it. But EXACTLY as described, when pressed for the most fundamental and simple examples of what benefits your proposals provide......you run. As you know nothing you've proposed will help any child. And will actively hurt the children of same sex parents.

And you don't care how many children you hurt as long as it lets you hurt gays.

Your policy that provides NO benefit and hurts tens of thouasands of children makes no sense if your goal is to help children. Which yours obviously isn't.

In both examples the conditions of those poor children do not justify sentencing the rest of children born into time unknown into foolish and damaging environments that aren't healthy for them.

Um, gays and lesbians still have kids. If you deny them marriage, that doesn't mean their children will have opposite sex parents. You only guarantee that these children will never have married parents.

There's nothing about denying same sex parents marriage that produces ANY of results you speak of. It only hurts kids.

Why would we ever do this?

 

[Silhouette]

Brothers and sisters have kids too. I'm awaiting your comments on the wellbeing of their kids re: marriage.