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

[NYcarbineer]

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

Specifically?

How does denying monosexual marriage to single parents help THEIR children? Why are you focusing on "helping" just a few children immediately and legally vs hurting 100s of millions of untold numbers of children by wanting the fed to dictate to states that they now have to incentivize homes where 50% of children will be missing their gender as a role model. No one to call "Dad" in a lesbian "marriage". No one to call "Mom" in a gay male "marriage". Since the question is so important, how does denying states the rights to debate and decide it help these 100s of millions of future children in the brand new lab experiment called dismantling-the-word-marriage?

On that particular question Skylar, how does a "gay marriage" differe structurally, only, on delivering both genders to children in the home as role models?

Specifically?

Your premise is false. You've invented a marriage requirement that doesn't exist, and never has existed.

 

[Silhouette]

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

Specifically?

How does denying monosexual marriage to single parents help THEIR children? Why are you focusing on "helping" just a few children immediately and legally vs hurting 100s of millions of untold numbers of children by wanting the fed to dictate to states that they now have to incentivize homes where 50% of children will be missing their gender as a role model. No one to call "Dad" in a lesbian "marriage". No one to call "Mom" in a gay male "marriage". Since the question is so important, how does denying states the rights to debate and decide it help these 100s of millions of future children in the brand new lab experiment called dismantling-the-word-marriage?

On that particular question Skylar, how does a "gay marriage" differ structurally, only, on delivering both genders to children in the home as role models? Specifically?

Your premise is false. You've invented a marriage requirement that doesn't exist, and never has existed.

States don't require children, they anticipate them statistically. They incentivize them by providing perks to the their definition of the word marriage which is man/woman. They do this because they know about the pitfalls of depriving a child of their gender as a role model. Boys need fathers. Girls need mothers. It is common knowledge since time immemorial and the OP also illustrates how it is statistically proven fact.

It is statistically true that with any man/woman marriage, time will bring children either naturally, adopted, fostered or grandparented. So states set up parameters to protect the ages long definition of marriage in calculated anticipation of children arriving to that formative environment. Otherwise there is no reason fiscally or otherwise for a state to get involved in that contract between two people. None whatsoever.

The only exceptions to the word "marriage" are brand spanking new social experiments enacted in a handful of states legally, where even the gays there had the condition of a mother and father and who have convinced ( I would say hoodwinked) the populace that this generation of children should be raised legitimately with full benefits and enticements as sons without fathers and daughters without mothers. That is those states' unfortunate choice as sovereigns within their system of democratic rule.

One thing's for sure, all 9 Justices grew up, the men having someone to call Dad and the Women someone to call Mom. 9 people shouldn't do to children what they did not have done to them without a proper review of the damage it could cause..

 

[g5000]

States don't require children, they anticipate them statistically. They incentivize them by providing perks to the their definition of the word marriage which is man/woman.

This idea that people need government cash and prizes to incentivize them to marry and have kids is hilarious.

Was the human race on the brink of extinction before the State started paying people to have kids?

Was marriage dying out before the State started giving people gifts to get married?

How has the institution of marriage fared since the State started these "incentive" programs? How have families fared since the State started bestowing gifts?

 

[Silhouette]

There is no other reason on earth for States to lose money on being involved in marriage. Go to a family court sometime and see who the state cares about the most, or at all in the marriage contract.

 

[Silhouette]

This idea that people need government cash and prizes to incentivize them to marry and have kids is hilarious.

Was the human race on the brink of extinction before the State started paying people to have kids?

Was marriage dying out before the State started giving people gifts to get married?

How has the institution of marriage fared since the State started these "incentive" programs? How have families fared since the State started bestowing gifts?

If you're saying the state should get completely out of a failing system instead of trying to act to rebolster it, then make your case. The state has a right to entice the best formative environment for kids. Otherwise they have no interest at all in losing money on marriage. A stable culture is their calculated expectation of kids arriving in marriage. Unstable cultures are expensive as you know.

So, make your case.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marriage isn't about children Sil. How many times must we tell you that?

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage isn't about children Sil. How many times must we tell you that?

I don't know Paint, I guess a lot of times?

Because your cult always chants the Kennedy line of "immediate legal harm to children of gay couples" when trying to legitimize forcing states to use kids as lab rats in the brand spanking new concept of boys growing up in fatherless "marriages" or girls growing up in motherless "marriages".

 

[mdk]

Marriage isn't about children Sil. How many times must we tell you that?

I don't know Paint, I guess a lot of times?

Because your cult always chants the Kennedy line of "immediate legal harm to children of gay couples" when trying to legitimize forcing states to use kids as lab rats in the brand spanking new concept of boys growing up in fatherless "marriages" or girls growing up in motherless "marriages".

Gays have been raising children for a very long time so the idea that is some "brand spanking new concept" is total bunk. Denying gays access to marriage in no way stops gays from raising children. Incoming red herring in 3...2...1...

 

[Skylar]

States don't require children, they anticipate them statistically.

No one is required to have children or be able to have them to get married. So there's no such basis for denying gays access to marriage based on their failure to meet a requirement that doesn't exist nor applies to anyone.

So how does denying same sex parents marriage help their children?

 

[mdk]

States don't require children, they anticipate them statistically.

No one is required to have children or be able to have them to get married. So there's no such basis for denying gays access to marriage based on their failure to meet a requirement that doesn't exist nor applies to anyone.

So how does denying same sex parents marriage help their children?

We both know Sil will abandon that question entirely and offer a red herring about wolves, polygamists, and, incest instead.

 

[Skylar]

States don't require children, they anticipate them statistically.

No one is required to have children or be able to have them to get married. So there's no such basis for denying gays access to marriage based on their failure to meet a requirement that doesn't exist nor applies to anyone.

So how does denying same sex parents marriage help their children?

We both know Sil will abandon that question entirely and offer a red herring about wolves, polygamists, and, incest instead.

Of course. He knows that his proposal hurts the children of same sex couples. And he knows that his proposals don't benefit them in anyway.

But its good to regularly underline the point that children only matter to Silo if he can use them to hurt gay people. If he can't, then he utterly ignores them.

His rout to 'wolves' and other such nonsense is merely a demonstration of this fact.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Specifically?

How does denying monosexual marriage to single parents help THEIR children? Why are you focusing on "helping" just a few children immediately and legally vs hurting 100s of millions of untold numbers of children by wanting the fed to dictate to states that they now have to incentivize homes where 50% of children will be missing their gender as a role model. No one to call "Dad" in a lesbian "marriage". No one to call "Mom" in a gay male "marriage". Since the question is so important, how does denying states the rights to debate and decide it help these 100s of millions of future children in the brand new lab experiment called dismantling-the-word-marriage?

On that particular question Skylar, how does a "gay marriage" differ structurally, only, on delivering both genders to children in the home as role models? Specifically?

Your premise is false. You've invented a marriage requirement that doesn't exist, and never has existed.

States don't require children, they anticipate them statistically. They incentivize them by providing perks to the their definition of the word marriage which is man/woman. They do this because they know about the pitfalls of depriving a child of their gender as a role model. .

Name the perks that married parents get that unmarried parents don't get, or single parents don't get, or gay couples with dependent children don't get.

There are no incentives for having children that are strictly limited to married man/woman couples.

All of the tax breaks related to dependent children apply to anyone that has them. All of the government healthcare and education benefits that relate to children apply to all children who qualify regardless of their parental circumstance.

Once again, your premise is false. We do not deprive child-related government benefits to households with only one parent, or two same sex parents.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marriage isn't about children Sil. How many times must we tell you that?

How long have you been here to have to ask that question? lol

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage isn't about children Sil. How many times must we tell you that?

How long have you been here to have to ask that question? lol

So let me get this straight, when Justice Kennedy says "but what about the children involved in gay houses that might experience legal harm", then the pitch is about the children when you perceive it can gain you some leverage. But when I suggest that children are the most important people in marriage, and I cite the Prince's Trust survey from the OP here, suddenly "marriage isn't about children Sil".

Convenient....and telling...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marriage isn't about children Sil. How many times must we tell you that?

How long have you been here to have to ask that question? lol

So let me get this straight, when Justice Kennedy says "but what about the children involved in gay houses that might experience legal harm", then the pitch is about the children when you perceive it can gain you some leverage. But when I suggest that children are the most important people in marriage, and I cite the Prince's Trust survey from the OP here, suddenly "marriage isn't about children Sil".

Convenient....and telling...

I explained to you in detail in post 192 why you are wrong about everything.

 

[Silhouette]

You are dodging, so let me repeat what I just asked:

So let me get this straight, when Justice Kennedy says "but what about the children involved in gay houses that might experience legal harm", then the pitch is about the children when you perceive it can gain you some leverage. But when I suggest that children are the most important people in marriage, and I cite the Prince's Trust survey from the OP here, suddenly "marriage isn't about children Sil".
Convenient....and telling...

 

[Montrovant]

You are dodging, so let me repeat what I just asked:

So let me get this straight, when Justice Kennedy says "but what about the children involved in gay houses that might experience legal harm", then the pitch is about the children when you perceive it can gain you some leverage. But when I suggest that children are the most important people in marriage, and I cite the Prince's Trust survey from the OP here, suddenly "marriage isn't about children Sil".
Convenient....and telling...

Marriage isn't about children, but children can be affected by marriage.

How's that?

 

[Silhouette]

You are dodging, so let me repeat what I just asked:

So let me get this straight, when Justice Kennedy says "but what about the children involved in gay houses that might experience legal harm", then the pitch is about the children when you perceive it can gain you some leverage. But when I suggest that children are the most important people in marriage, and I cite the Prince's Trust survey from the OP here, suddenly "marriage isn't about children Sil".
Convenient....and telling...

Marriage isn't about children, but children can be affected by marriage.

How's that?

Yes, they can be affected by marriage. Would you say that they might be affected as a boy in a marriage who had neither parent to call "Dad"? Or a girl in a marriage who had neither parent to call "Mom"?

"Marriage isn't about children" eh? Can I quote you on that in my amicus brief to Justice Kennedy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are dodging, so let me repeat what I just asked:

So let me get this straight, when Justice Kennedy says "but what about the children involved in gay houses that might experience legal harm", then the pitch is about the children when you perceive it can gain you some leverage. But when I suggest that children are the most important people in marriage, and I cite the Prince's Trust survey from the OP here, suddenly "marriage isn't about children Sil".
Convenient....and telling...

Marriage isn't about children, but children can be affected by marriage.

How's that?

Yes, they can be affected by marriage. Would you say that they might be affected as a boy in a marriage who had neither parent to call "Dad"? Or a girl in a marriage who had neither parent to call "Mom"?

"Marriage isn't about children" eh? Can I quote you on that in my amicus brief to Justice Kennedy?

You're advocating for children to be taken away from gay couples, married or not.

Good luck with that.

 

[Silhouette]

strawman.