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

[ABikerSailor]

What about the foster children who call their foster parents by their first name, and never call them "mom" or "dad"?

Me? I was one of those foster children for around 4 years.

 

[bendog]

I'm Dog unless she wants something. Then I'm Daddy. Works for her every damn time. LOL

 

[NYcarbineer]

But in a female-female "marriage", which one does a boy call "Dad"? In a male-male "marriage" which one does a girl call "Mom".

Neither.

I can't believe you could not figure that out!!!

So since the Prince's Trust found that a boy growing up without a father or a girl growing up without a mother causes them statistically to wind up on drugs, in trouble with the law, indigent and having a lack of a sense of feeling of belonging, then we both agree that so-called 'gay marriage' is bad for kids. At least 50% of them.

And if you disagree with this conclusion, please explain without ad hominems or general-denials, with specifics only and using logic, as to how your disagreement invalidates what I just said.

As if this hasn't been said enough...

...that study is of no value in deciding marriage rights, even if the study was relevant and valid, which it isn't.

We don't decide rights for groups of people based on some theory that a certain percentage in that group of people might cause harm because they had those rights.

 

[bendog]

... HALF OF THE KIDS BEING RAISED BY GAYS/LESBIANS HAVE PARENTS OF THEIR OWN GENDER.

What about the other half?

The Prince Trust has to do with kids raised by single parents, Sil. So why don't you expend your energy trying to fight all the fucked up heteros who put those kids in that situation instead of bizarrely trying to pin their problems on gays? HOLY SHIT!!!

Sheer nuttery.

Actually the Prince's Trust is about kids without their own gender as an adult role model. Read it again and get back to me.

I have read it, dumbass. You clearly have not.

Your verbal abuse is not warranted in this conversation.

No shit! And what percentage of kid's with straight parents have only one parental person who is of a different gender. That's why you're an epic fail thread, which even assuming there is some merit to the study (which there isn't because it's BRITISH and about Brit society) it doesn't have jack shite to do with gay people.

 

[bendog]

But in a female-female "marriage", which one does a boy call "Dad"? In a male-male "marriage" which one does a girl call "Mom".

Neither.

I can't believe you could not figure that out!!!

So since the Prince's Trust found that a boy growing up without a father or a girl growing up without a mother causes them statistically to wind up on drugs, in trouble with the law, indigent and having a lack of a sense of feeling of belonging, then we both agree that so-called 'gay marriage' is bad for kids. At least 50% of them.

And if you disagree with this conclusion, please explain without ad hominems or general-denials, with specifics only and using logic, as to how your disagreement invalidates what I just said.

As if this hasn't been said enough...

...that study is of no value in deciding marriage rights, even if the study was relevant and valid, which it isn't.

We don't decide rights for groups of people based on some theory that a certain percentage in that group of people might cause harm because they had those rights.

I'm beginning to think Sil might be the Gimp in Pulp Fiction.

 

[Silhouette]

...And what percentage of kid's with straight parents have only one parental person who is of a different gender. That's why you're an epic fail thread, which even assuming there is some merit to the study (which there isn't because it's BRITISH and about Brit society) it doesn't have jack shite to do with gay people.

Are straight single parents married?

Your group is wanting to redact the word marriage, remember? Kids are involved in that institution. According to Justice Kennedy, they ARE the institution's main consideration. So all children not currenlty receiving the benefit of their custodian(s) having the perks of marriage are at risk, according to your logic.

I say institutionalizing a situation where "married" = no dad for a son or no mom for a daughter is bad for children. Boys not having dads and girls not having moms is not a situation states should be forced to incentivize.

 

[Silhouette]

As if this hasn't been said enough...

...that study is of no value in deciding marriage rights, even if the study was relevant and valid, which it isn't.

We don't decide rights for groups of people based on some theory that a certain percentage in that group of people might cause harm because they had those rights.

We do if we're talking about lifestyles wanting to force states federally to redact the word "marriage" to include something we have reason to believe will be a detriment to the most important people in a marriage: children.

We aren't talking about a race of people facing oppression. We are talking about a loosely-knit ill-defined lifestyle-group of (just some but oddly not other) deviant sexuals trying to play act "mom and dad" to kids in a brand new social experiment..using kids as lab rats. Kids have civil rights to not be experimented with you know. And states have a right to protect children from being experimented with psychologically; ESPECIALLY when detriment to their condition is reasonable to expect (see Prince's Trust survey) Children's rights/states as their immediate custodian's rights in this question are actually dominant to adults because kids cannot vote to affect their fate.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Forgive me if this has been addressed already at some point, but I have a question. If same gender relationships are awesome, okay, nothing to be ashamed about whatever, why are some homosexual people more than willing to go out of their way to look like the opposite sex of what they are?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. I ask this because I have a female cousin who is gay and the last time that I saw her, she was dressed in a guy's suit and her hair was cut to make her look like a male. If there really was nothing wrong with the lifestyle, I don't believe that any homosexual person would feel the need to do such a thing with their appearance.

 

[Silhouette]

Forgive me if this has been addressed already at some point, but I have a question. If same gender relationships are awesome, okay, nothing to be ashamed about whatever, why are some homosexual people more than willing to go out of their way to look like the opposite sex of what they are?...I ask this because I have a female cousin who is gay and the last time that I saw her, she was dressed in a guy's suit and her hair was cut to make her look like a male. If there really was nothing wrong with the lifestyle, I don't believe that any homosexual person would feel the need to do such a thing with their appearance.

The girls attracted to you cousin's masculine appearance are actually closeted hetero. The concept applies both ways. It's why not-actually-gay Anne Heche transitioned with ease from masculine dressing/acting Degeneres to an actual man. What could be an easier transition for a confused "lipstick lesbian"?

Just one of a host of "not allowed" topics of manifest deep psychological issues the general public is supposed to ignore so these folks can qualify to adopt children (marriage).

 

[NYcarbineer]

As if this hasn't been said enough...

...that study is of no value in deciding marriage rights, even if the study was relevant and valid, which it isn't.

We don't decide rights for groups of people based on some theory that a certain percentage in that group of people might cause harm because they had those rights.

We do if we're talking about lifestyles wanting to force states federally to redact the word "marriage" to include something we have reason to believe will be a detriment to the most important people in a marriage: children.

We aren't talking about a race of people facing oppression. We are talking about a loosely-knit ill-defined lifestyle-group of (just some but oddly not other) deviant sexuals trying to play act "mom and dad" to kids in a brand new social experiment..using kids as lab rats. Kids have civil rights to not be experimented with you know. And states have a right to protect children from being experimented with psychologically; ESPECIALLY when detriment to their condition is reasonable to expect (see Prince's Trust survey) Children's rights/states as their immediate custodian's rights in this question are actually dominant to adults because kids cannot vote to affect their fate.

You don't seem to get that same sex couples can do everything you object to without being legally married.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Forgive me if this has been addressed already at some point, but I have a question. If same gender relationships are awesome, okay, nothing to be ashamed about whatever, why are some homosexual people more than willing to go out of their way to look like the opposite sex of what they are?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. I ask this because I have a female cousin who is gay and the last time that I saw her, she was dressed in a guy's suit and her hair was cut to make her look like a male. If there really was nothing wrong with the lifestyle, I don't believe that any homosexual person would feel the need to do such a thing with their appearance.

They do that because that is what they are comfortable with.

Some people prefer flannel, blue jeans and boots.

Others prefer to have dresses, high heels and hats.

Me? Depends on what decade you caught me in.

They're not trying to hide, they are just expressing what their inner person looks like.

(And yeah..............I know that sounds New Age, but it's still the truth).

 

[Silhouette]

Forgive me if this has been addressed already at some point, but I have a question. If same gender relationships are awesome, okay, nothing to be ashamed about whatever, why are some homosexual people more than willing to go out of their way to look like the opposite sex of what they are?

They do that because that is what they are comfortable with.

Some people prefer flannel, blue jeans and boots.

Others prefer to have dresses, high heels and hats...

No, the LGBT community would say that such people are "closeted". If a hetero guy was attracted to women who cropped their hair short, wore flannels, hiking boots and lowered their voice like a man during sex or what have you, gays would insist he was closeted and in fact had homosexual tendencies. The same applies in reverse. Ask them. They'll tell you.

The issue is...well...issues.

The question of this thread though is should kids be taught that calling a woman who dresses and acts like a man "Dad"? Will that suffice to fool them?

 

[Silhouette]

I think kids can tell the difference, do you?

 

[Silhouette]

food for thought hetero marraiges outnumber gay ones by a billion to one.

The word "marriage" means to children always and especially "father and mother". Perennially. If not this would be a brand new social experiment using this current generation of youngsters as lab rats.

What could go wrong?

(Read the OP for details...)

 

[hipeter924]

Sure they can, no one owns the English language.

 

[Skylar]

food for thought hetero marraiges outnumber gay ones by a billion to one.

The word "marriage" means to children always and especially "father and mother".

The word 'marriage' means to children whatever we teach them it means.

 

[g5000]

Forgive me if this has been addressed already at some point, but I have a question. If same gender relationships are awesome, okay, nothing to be ashamed about whatever, why are some homosexual people more than willing to go out of their way to look like the opposite sex of what they are?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. I ask this because I have a female cousin who is gay and the last time that I saw her, she was dressed in a guy's suit and her hair was cut to make her look like a male. If there really was nothing wrong with the lifestyle, I don't believe that any homosexual person would feel the need to do such a thing with their appearance.

Lesbians wear what is comfortable or practical instead of dressing the way men like women to dress.

And men's clothes are far more comfortable and practical than what you find in the women's department, no?

A lot of straight women like to wear their man's shirt around the house for this reason.

 

[hazlnut]

This drum beat needs to be heard on behalf of the most meek voices in this debate: children. They cannot vote to affect their fate and they rely solely upon the citizens of their respective states to act as their custodians in this matter. If those voices are silenced, so are theirs.

California, the most permissive state in the Union with the longest opportunity to observe the LGBT culture (San Francisco, CA as ground-zero) and uber-aggressive-litigation-machine, voted to preserve the physical structure of marriage as man/woman TWICE. What this means is, the experimental-lifestyle-as-parents is repugnant to the most permissive state with the most experience with the brand spanking new lab experiment with children.

This is obvious upon it's face, but a child cannot call 2 women or 2 men "Mom and Dad". This thread in the link below goes into excruciating detail as to why states must be allowed to incentivize the best physical structure of marriage on behalf of children/future productive or nonproductive liabilities to that respective state. That state's discreet community MUST have a voice on behalf of its unprotected citizens: children...

Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Homosexuality is not a choice.

Bigotry and intolerance is.

Though if you consider that bigotry and intolerance are a result of low intelligence--then maybe that can be your excuse. "I can't help it. I'm just dumb."

 

[g5000]

Homosexuality is not a choice.

Bigotry and intolerance is.

Pretty much sums it up.

 

[Silhouette]

The word 'marriage' means to children whatever we teach them it means.

"We"? Does that include all of us or just your tiny-minority cult and 5 Justices in DC?

Will you also "teach" them that a woman is a father and a man is a mother? Just curious, because "We" (the People) aren't on board with that..