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

[Silhouette]

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

Nope. Not advocating any such thing as you well know. Neither am I advocating children be taken from gay marriage's equal: single parents who also don't provide a son with Dad or a daughter with a Mom, depending...

I'm advocating that because you had both a Mom and a Dad and so did all the Justices in the US Supreme Court and because this is a brand new social experiment where kids are the ultimate lab rats in the end, that states be allowed to voice their opinion on such a radical change to a millenial-old definition of a word that stands so keenly poised to affect the formative years of the most important people involved in the word: children.

So far a handful of states have changed the definition of the word "marriage". They want to subject their future children to marriages they themselves never knew or even conceived of: ones with fatherless sons and motherless daughters "as married". I say it's a mistake, but at least it's a mistake the governed made for themselves instead of having it federally imposed upon them by 9 people in DC who themselves had a mother and a father... Why should our future's children be forced to accept that which they did not have to?

 

[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?

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?

Have you figured out just what quoting means yet?

 

[Silhouette]

Another strawman...shocker...

Speak to the content of my post and quit dodging. Post #201

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Nope. Not advocating any such thing as you well know. Neither am I advocating children be taken from gay marriage's equal: single parents who also don't provide a son with Dad or a daughter with a Mom, depending...

I'm advocating that because you had both a Mom and a Dad and so did all the Justices in the US Supreme Court and because this is a brand new social experiment where kids are the ultimate lab rats in the end, that states be allowed to voice their opinion on such a radical change to a millenial-old definition of a word that stands so keenly poised to affect the formative years of the most important people involved in the word: children.

So far a handful of states have changed the definition of the word "marriage". They want to subject their future children to marriages they themselves never knew or even conceived of: ones with fatherless sons and motherless daughters "as married". I say it's a mistake, but at least it's a mistake the governed made for themselves instead of having it federally imposed upon them by 9 people in DC who themselves had a mother and a father... Why should our future's children be forced to accept that which they did not have to?

So you can't make the case that same sex parenting is so harmful that it must be considered a sufficient grounds for the government to deny someone an otherwise equal right.

That's MY point. You have no case.

 

[Silhouette]

So you can't make the case that same sex parenting is so harmful that it must be considered a sufficient grounds for the government to deny someone an otherwise equal right.

That's MY point. You have no case.

In denying a boy someone to call "Dad" or a girl someone to call "Mom" in 50% of "gay marriages", it is structurally no different than single parenthood. I'm not here to advocate for removing kids from the lesser of two evils (the worse being an orphan). I'm here advocating what states should be allowed to continue to do to entice the BEST conditions by preserving the word marriage intact: thus providing BOTH a mother AND father in every marriage.

 

[mdk]

So you can't make the case that same sex parenting is so harmful that it must be considered a sufficient grounds for the government to deny someone an otherwise equal right.

That's MY point. You have no case.

In denying a boy someone to call "Dad" or a girl someone to call "Mom" in 50% of "gay marriages", it is structurally no different than single parenthood. I'm not here to advocate for removing kids from the lesser of two evils (the worse being an orphan). I'm here advocating what states should be allowed to continue to do to entice the BEST conditions by preserving the word marriage intact: thus providing BOTH a mother AND father in every marriage.

Except for that fact that it is nothing like single parenthood b/c the child will in fact have two parents. Denying gays access to marriage in no way stops them from being parents, it only stops them from being married. Gays are getting married and marriage is still intact. Get over it.

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage means two parents. Two parents means father/mother. It is so because that is the definition of the word and just so happens to be the prime and best psychological environment for children to establish their connection to society and find their identity in the world via their gender's modeling.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Nope. Not advocating any such thing as you well know. Neither am I advocating children be taken from gay marriage's equal: single parents who also don't provide a son with Dad or a daughter with a Mom, depending...

I'm advocating that because you had both a Mom and a Dad and so did all the Justices in the US Supreme Court and because this is a brand new social experiment where kids are the ultimate lab rats in the end, that states be allowed to voice their opinion on such a radical change to a millenial-old definition of a word that stands so keenly poised to affect the formative years of the most important people involved in the word: children.

So far a handful of states have changed the definition of the word "marriage". They want to subject their future children to marriages they themselves never knew or even conceived of: ones with fatherless sons and motherless daughters "as married". I say it's a mistake, but at least it's a mistake the governed made for themselves instead of having it federally imposed upon them by 9 people in DC who themselves had a mother and a father... Why should our future's children be forced to accept that which they did not have to?

So you can't make the case that same sex parenting is so harmful that it must be considered a sufficient grounds for the government to deny someone an otherwise equal right.

That's MY point. You have no case.

Correct.

The courts have heard and rejected this nonsense about families headed by same-sex couples being 'harmful' to children; those hostile to same-sex couples have failed time and again to submit to the courts objective, documented evidence that children with same-sex parents are in anyway 'disadvantaged.'

 

[mdk]

Marriage means two parents. Two parents means father/mother. It is so because that is the definition of the word and just so happens to be the prime and best psychological environment for children to establish their connection to society and find their identity in the world via their gender's modeling.

Marriage does not require anyone to be a parent. Nowhere in the definition of marriage does it say a thing about being parent. You are making up definitions in a lame attempt to justify your anti-gay marriage stance.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SILHOUETTE SAID:

“Marriage means two parents.”

And those married parents can be of the same- or opposite-sex; as long as children know they're loved and cared for, they will thrive – regardless the gender of their parents.

That you have an unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans is not justification to seek to deny them their civil rights, and to attampt to contrive and propagate lies that same-sex parents are somehow 'harmful' to their children is reckless, irresponsible, and reprehensible.

 

[Syriusly]

The reason a Child Can't Call 2 Women or 2 Men "Mom & Dad is because it would freak conservatives out too much

Just conservatives eh? Do you remember the election results of 2014? Middle voters made that happen. Might want to check your definition of "conservative" when it comes to this question..

Now the 2014 election was because of gay marriage?

Methinks you do stretch too much

And yet it was voted down twice in California.

Is California a blue or red state? I forget...

How is an election in 2008 related to the 2014 elections?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you can't make the case that same sex parenting is so harmful that it must be considered a sufficient grounds for the government to deny someone an otherwise equal right.

That's MY point. You have no case.

In denying a boy someone to call "Dad" or a girl someone to call "Mom" in 50% of "gay marriages", it is structurally no different than single parenthood. I'm not here to advocate for removing kids from the lesser of two evils (the worse being an orphan). I'm here advocating what states should be allowed to continue to do to entice the BEST conditions by preserving the word marriage intact: thus providing BOTH a mother AND father in every marriage.

You are insane. That's all there is to it. Your argument, if it deserves being called that, is absurd even when measured against the rest of the crappy arguments against same sex marriage.

When we outlaw single parenthood, then you can claim your argument has some relevance in the real world.

In the meantime, why don't you at least dignify the debate by stopping the pretense and simply admitting you're a homophobe and go from there.

The homophobes will welcome your contribution to their wacky cause.

 

[Syriusly]

The reason a Child Can't Call 2 Women or 2 Men "Mom & Dad is because it would freak conservatives out too much

Just conservatives eh? Do you remember the election results of 2014? Middle voters made that happen. Might want to check your definition of "conservative" when it comes to this question..

Now the 2014 election was because of gay marriage?

Methinks you do stretch too much

And yet it was voted down twice in California.

Is California a blue or red state? I forget...

So long ago, I don't remember

How is gay marriage working out in California anyway?

Don't know how it's working out because it's still illegal there as it is in every state where a lower circuit Justice circumvented due process and didn't allow SCOTUS to overturn Windsor on their own.....

Just delusional- the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Prop 8 and could have overturned the lower courts rulings, but decided to let the ruling stand- meaning same gender marriage is legal in California.

And so far its working out great. People in love are getting married, just like they should be able to do.

 

[Syriusly]

The bottom line is that this brand new social experiment is detested left of center all the way to just the beginnings of the fringe left. It's quite simple and visceral actually....people detest the idea of using kids as lab rats. And they remember that states regulate lifestyles and behaviors. They like to self-govern and don't like the idea of a fringe cult dictating to them that they cannot act to preserve the best definition for the sake of childrens' formative environment (marriage)....with "mom and dad".

There isn't an actual fact or truth in your entire post.

 

[Syriusly]

Here's where your position is irrational.

1. You believe that same sex couples with children are harmful to those children.

2. You are willing to leave same sex marriage up to the states.

Question: why would you be willing to allow the states to sanction something you believe causes harm to children?

1. They are, they deprive 50% of children involved of their same gender as a role model. It's not their fault, it's a structural problem. And since it's a no-fault situation, the benefit of the choice always goes to the children because unlike gays, they cannot vote to affect their fate.
.

Still waiting for you to explain how that works.

Same gender couple not married- raising children
Same gender couple married- raising children.

How does the act of marrying harm the children?

 

[Syriusly]

Here's where your position is irrational.

1. You believe that same sex couples with children are harmful to those children.

2. You are willing to leave same sex marriage up to the states.

Question: why would you be willing to allow the states to sanction something you believe causes harm to children?

1. They are, they deprive 50% of children involved of their same gender as a role model. It's not their fault, it's a structural problem. And since it's a no-fault situation, the benefit of the choice always goes to the children because unlike gays, they cannot vote to affect their fate.

2. Thanks for acknowledging finally that that is the interim law that must be re-avered this year. We're talking about lifestyles, not a race of people.

You dodged the point, thus proving mine.

Hardly, you have yet to explain how two women or two men can provide both genders to kids involved in a "gay married home" as mom and dad? I'd like to hear how gays will get around

Since there is no requirement for 'both genders' to be parents, it is no difference between gay married couples and unmarried couples.

Now how does marrying harm the children?

 

[Syriusly]

It does not such thing. If you can get a law passed that will take children away from single parents because they don't have insufficient 'role models' in the home,

then from there you can make your case against same sex couples.

See your problem?

Nobody on earth is seeking to make laws to take children away from who is raising them now; not even from wolves, .

What do the children raised by wolves call their mom?

 

[Syriusly]

From last page...

...Nobody on earth is seeking to make laws to take children away from who is raising them now; not even from wolves,.

What do the children raised by wolves call their moms?

 

[Syriusly]

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

Specifically?

How does denying monosexual marriage to single parents

Nobody is denying marriage to single parents.

Now again-- how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

 

[Syriusly]

Lesbians are having children anyway. And have been for generations. Your absurd conclusion that this is the first generation lesbians have ever had kids is provable bullshit. Worse, denying gay marriage doesn't actually effect anything you've just cited. Denying lesbians access to marriage doesn't mean that their children magically have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that these children can never have married parents.

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

Specifically.

Polygamists' children can never have married parents.

How does preventing the gay parents raising their children from marrying help their children?