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

[Skylar]

No, Skylar is offering up the red herring of "if we don't allow gays to marry it will hurt kids".

A 'red herring'? I don't think that word means what you think it means. We're discussing the welfare of children as is it relates to gay marriage. I'm pointing out that denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children. But only hurts them.

And you don't even disagree with me. You've essentially conceded the point, insisting that it was never about the welfare of the children of gay parents.

Just because your argument collapsed doesn't mean that pointing out this fact is a 'red herring'.

 

[Skylar]

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

And when their cases are being heard by the USSC, I'll be happy to discuss them. But exactly as was predicted, when cornered with the absurdity of your own argument, you abandon it. You're stuck.

1) Denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children. It only hurts these children.

2) Denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't mean that their children have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that these children never have married parents. Which hurts these children.

There's nothing you've argued against that denying gay marriage affects in any way. All your proposals do is hurt kids. And you'll gladly hurt any number of children if it lets you hurt gays.

No thank you.

 

[Silhouette]

No, Skylar is offering up the red herring of "if we don't allow gays to marry it will hurt kids".

A 'red herring'? I don't think that word means what you think it means. We're discussing the welfare of children as is it relates to gay marriage. I'm pointing out that denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children. But only hurts them.

And you don't even disagree with me. You've essentially conceded the point, insisting that it was never about the welfare of the children of gay parents.

Just because your argument collapsed doesn't mean that pointing out this fact is a 'red herring'.

(Responding to Skylar's collapsed argument)

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...

 

[Montrovant]

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

Do brothers and sisters legally have children in the US? I know that gays do, but I was under the impression there were laws against incestuous relationships. If that is the case, before worrying about marriage, it would first be important that a brother and sister having a child be legal for your analogy to work.

 

[Skylar]

No, Skylar is offering up the red herring of "if we don't allow gays to marry it will hurt kids".

A 'red herring'? I don't think that word means what you think it means. We're discussing the welfare of children as is it relates to gay marriage. I'm pointing out that denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children. But only hurts them.

And you don't even disagree with me. You've essentially conceded the point, insisting that it was never about the welfare of the children of gay parents.

Just because your argument collapsed doesn't mean that pointing out this fact is a 'red herring'.

(Responding to Skylar's collapsed argument)

Laughing......dude, parroting my argument isn't going to help. You're stuck. Let me demonstrate yet again:

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.

How?

If you deny lesbian parents marriage....does that mean their children have opposite sex parents?

Nope. Denying marriage has no relevance nor effect on anything you're discussing. Denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't mean that their children have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that these children never have married parents.

Which hurts these children.

So....no benefit. But plenty of harm. Why would we ever do this?

 

[Montrovant]

No, Skylar is offering up the red herring of "if we don't allow gays to marry it will hurt kids".

A 'red herring'? I don't think that word means what you think it means. We're discussing the welfare of children as is it relates to gay marriage. I'm pointing out that denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children. But only hurts them.

And you don't even disagree with me. You've essentially conceded the point, insisting that it was never about the welfare of the children of gay parents.

Just because your argument collapsed doesn't mean that pointing out this fact is a 'red herring'.

(Responding to Skylar's collapsed argument)

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...

Once again, I feel the desire to point out that marriage in no way requires children. More, the state incentivizes children whether the parents are married or not. So your argument that marriage is about children goes against the observable evidence.

Further, while the 'ideal' may be a child living with their biological parents, marriage is certainly not limited to the ideal situation. The state does not limit marriage based on anything to do with ideal child rearing situations. Previously the only real limitation was 2 consenting opposite gender, not-closely-related adults. Now it is becoming simply 2 consenting, not-closely-related adults. Perhaps in the future it will be just 2 consenting adults, or any number of consenting adults. That isn't the current issue, though.

Oh, and there are probably thousands or even millions of people who grew up without 2 parents in their lives who would have loved to have 2 loving parents whether of the same gender or not. That you consider having married same sex parents something that must be 'endured' does not mean that sentiment is universally shared. For too many children, having any parents at all would be a blessing.

 

[Skylar]

No, Skylar is offering up the red herring of "if we don't allow gays to marry it will hurt kids".

A 'red herring'? I don't think that word means what you think it means. We're discussing the welfare of children as is it relates to gay marriage. I'm pointing out that denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help their children. But only hurts them.

And you don't even disagree with me. You've essentially conceded the point, insisting that it was never about the welfare of the children of gay parents.

Just because your argument collapsed doesn't mean that pointing out this fact is a 'red herring'.

(Responding to Skylar's collapsed argument)

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...

Once again, I feel the desire to point out that marriage in no way requires children. More, the state incentivizes children whether the parents are married or not. So your argument that marriage is about children goes against the observable evidence.

Oh, Sil's argument fails on in stages and layers. Its like a game of fallacy jenga.

No one is required to have kids or be able to have them in order to get married. Ending his argument yet again.