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

[Skylar]

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..

Notice you don't actually disagree with me. Nor should you, as I'm right.

 

[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..

Notice you don't actually disagree with me. Nor should you, as I'm right.

So you are "we"? Who are you referring to when you say "we"?

 

[Skylar]

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..

Notice you don't actually disagree with me. Nor should you, as I'm right.

So you are "we"? Who are you referring to when you say "we"?

Whomever is teaching the child. They aren't born with an intrinsic understanding of English. They learn the meaning of words because we teach them the meaning. And if we teach them that marriage is a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and woman......that's what the child will understand marriage to mean.

And from your stark lack of disagreement, it seems pretty obvious that you understand that.

 

[Silhouette]

Whomever is teaching the child. They aren't born with an intrinsic understanding of English. They learn the meaning of words because we teach them the meaning. And if we teach them that marriage is a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and woman......that's what the child will understand marriage to mean.

And from your stark lack of disagreement, it seems pretty obvious that you understand that.

So you are suggesting institutionalizing the redaction of much of the english language and its description of physical realities known as genders so that your game of pretend can become reality for the rest of us?

No, I think that requires permission of the majority; especially when kids are involved.

 

[Skylar]

Whomever is teaching the child. They aren't born with an intrinsic understanding of English. They learn the meaning of words because we teach them the meaning. And if we teach them that marriage is a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and woman......that's what the child will understand marriage to mean.

And from your stark lack of disagreement, it seems pretty obvious that you understand that.

So you are suggesting institutionalizing the redaction of much of the english language and its description of physical realities known as genders so that your game of pretend can become reality for the rest of us?

The physical realities known as genders aren't based on the definition of marriage. Nor the other way around. So same sex marriage can exist....and the physical realities of genders can exist. The two aren't mutually exclusive, nor mutually dependent. They exist independently of each other.

And a child's undertanding of the word 'marriage' is whatever we tell the child the term means.

 

[Syriusly]

Children are being raised by gays whether their parents are married or not., denying them marriage doesn't magically put them in a home with a Mom and Dad. All that you are ensuring is that these children do not have married parents.

Children are being raised by polygamists whether their parents are married or not, denying them marriage...Children are being raised by incest parents whether their parents are married or not, denying them marriage...Children are being raised by monosexuals whether their parent chooses to be single or not, denying the monosexual marriage benefits...

And back to the question:

You have claimed that gay marriage will harm children.

How does gay marriage harm children?

Not gay parenting- how does gay marriage harm children.

 

[Syriusly]

Whomever is teaching the child. They aren't born with an intrinsic understanding of English. They learn the meaning of words because we teach them the meaning. And if we teach them that marriage is a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and woman......that's what the child will understand marriage to mean.

And from your stark lack of disagreement, it seems pretty obvious that you understand that.

So you are suggesting institutionalizing the redaction of much of the english language and its description of physical realities known as genders so that your game of pretend can become reality for the rest of us?

The physical realities known as genders aren't based on the definition of marriage. Nor the other way around. So same sex marriage can exist....and the physical realities of genders can exist. The two aren't mutually exclusive, nor mutually dependent. They exist independently of each other.

And a child's undertanding of the word 'marriage' is whatever we tell the child the term means.

Absolutely- my child looks on the prohibition of gay marriage as just as anachronistic(and unfathomable) as those who argued that inter-racial marraige was immoral and would lead to polygamy and incest.

 

[AntiParty]

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

You are trying to paint a picture that the kids need something different. I suggest you ask those kids instead of trying to inject control on their families.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Whomever is teaching the child. They aren't born with an intrinsic understanding of English. They learn the meaning of words because we teach them the meaning. And if we teach them that marriage is a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and woman......that's what the child will understand marriage to mean.

And from your stark lack of disagreement, it seems pretty obvious that you understand that.

So you are suggesting institutionalizing the redaction of much of the english language and its description of physical realities known as genders so that your game of pretend can become reality for the rest of us?

No, I think that requires permission of the majority; especially when kids are involved.

No one is 'suggesting' anything.

It is a fact that same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts.

It is a fact that seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

It is a fact that children with same-sex parents are in no way 'disadvantaged' by their same-sex parents being married.

And it is a fact that your opposition to same-sex couples marrying is motivated solely by an unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans.

 

[Silhouette]

No one is 'suggesting' anything.

It is a fact that same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts.

It is a fact that seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

It is a fact that children with same-sex parents are in no way 'disadvantaged' by their same-sex parents being married.

And it is a fact that your opposition to same-sex couples marrying is motivated solely by an unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans.

So can 13 year olds in the state that permitted this. There is no mandate where 13 year olds have to be married in all 50 states.

A son having no father (lesbian marriage) and a daughter having no mother (gay male marriage) have been found to be at a disadvantage to their peers with both a mother and father in the home.

 

[Montrovant]

No one is 'suggesting' anything.

It is a fact that same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts.

It is a fact that seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

It is a fact that children with same-sex parents are in no way 'disadvantaged' by their same-sex parents being married.

And it is a fact that your opposition to same-sex couples marrying is motivated solely by an unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans.

So can 13 year olds in the state that permitted this. There is no mandate where 13 year olds have to be married in all 50 states.

A son having no father (lesbian marriage) and a daughter having no mother (gay male marriage) have been found to be at a disadvantage to their peers with both a mother and father in the home.

Two things.

First, a homosexual marriage or parents do not eliminate the need for a mother or father. They may not be raised by their mother or father, but the children of homosexual couples will still have one of each (although I do recall reading something about researchers creating a viable fertilized embryo from two females recently, I'm not sure what animal or if it was really accomplished or merely theory).

Second, because you're almost surely going to bring it up, the Prince's Trust Youth Index did not say that lacking a same gender parent while being raised caused problems. The survey you link but apparently don't comprehend found that children who lacked positive role models of the same gender tended to be less happy than their peers. And it never once mentioned either homosexuality or same sex marriage, nor did it specify who could be a positive same gender role model.

 

[Silhouette]

No one is 'suggesting' anything.

It is a fact that same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts.

It is a fact that seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

It is a fact that children with same-sex parents are in no way 'disadvantaged' by their same-sex parents being married.

And it is a fact that your opposition to same-sex couples marrying is motivated solely by an unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans.

So can 13 year olds in the state that permitted this. There is no mandate where 13 year olds have to be married in all 50 states.

A son having no father (lesbian marriage) and a daughter having no mother (gay male marriage) have been found to be at a disadvantage to their peers with both a mother and father in the home.

First, a homosexual marriage or parents do not eliminate the need for a mother or father. They may not be raised by their mother or father, but the children of homosexual couples will still have one of each (although I do recall reading something about researchers creating a viable fertilized embryo from two females recently, I'm not sure what animal or if it was really accomplished or merely theory).

Second, because you're almost surely going to bring it up, the Prince's Trust Youth Index did not say that lacking a same gender parent while being raised caused problems. The survey you link but apparently don't comprehend found that children who lacked positive role models of the same gender tended to be less happy than their peers. And it never once mentioned either homosexuality or same sex marriage, nor did it specify who could be a positive same gender role model.

Children of a "homosexual marriage" will have one of each gender as a parent, really? Are you trying to say that a sperm bank is a parent? Or a donor womb is a parent?

The Prince's Trust survey said that a boy raised without a father or a girl without a mother is poised to suffer psychologically in real and statisically-proven ways.

FACT a lesbian marriage deprives a boy of a father. FACT a gay-male marriage deprives a girl of a mother. Structurally, the Prince's Trust survey APPLIES TO GAY MARRIAGES.

 

[bodecea]

No one is 'suggesting' anything.

It is a fact that same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts.

It is a fact that seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

It is a fact that children with same-sex parents are in no way 'disadvantaged' by their same-sex parents being married.

And it is a fact that your opposition to same-sex couples marrying is motivated solely by an unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans.

So can 13 year olds in the state that permitted this. There is no mandate where 13 year olds have to be married in all 50 states.

A son having no father (lesbian marriage) and a daughter having no mother (gay male marriage) have been found to be at a disadvantage to their peers with both a mother and father in the home.

Only to cruel people.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh what, now are you going to threaten to commit suicide as a rebuttal to the truth? That's not enough to subject children to your brand new and repugnant social experiment that deprives boys of dads and girls of moms.. Sorry, kids come first. In fact, untreated mental illness can be cyclic and socially transmitted. So to spare kids further derangement is the most humane thing anyone could do in this situation.

Consult the Prince's Trust for details..

You had a mother and father. But you seek to institutionalize the lack of that to children who cannot vote to contend with you or fend off using them as lab rats..

 

[bodecea]

Oh what, now are you going to threaten to commit suicide as a rebuttal to the truth? That's not enough to subject children to your brand new and repugnant social experiment that deprives boys of dads and girls of moms..

What are you mumbling about now?

 

[Silhouette]

Thought you were ranting about how if gay marriage wasn't allowed to use kids as lab rats that this was "cruel".

 

[Montrovant]

No one is 'suggesting' anything.

It is a fact that same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts.

It is a fact that seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

It is a fact that children with same-sex parents are in no way 'disadvantaged' by their same-sex parents being married.

And it is a fact that your opposition to same-sex couples marrying is motivated solely by an unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans.

So can 13 year olds in the state that permitted this. There is no mandate where 13 year olds have to be married in all 50 states.

A son having no father (lesbian marriage) and a daughter having no mother (gay male marriage) have been found to be at a disadvantage to their peers with both a mother and father in the home.

First, a homosexual marriage or parents do not eliminate the need for a mother or father. They may not be raised by their mother or father, but the children of homosexual couples will still have one of each (although I do recall reading something about researchers creating a viable fertilized embryo from two females recently, I'm not sure what animal or if it was really accomplished or merely theory).

Second, because you're almost surely going to bring it up, the Prince's Trust Youth Index did not say that lacking a same gender parent while being raised caused problems. The survey you link but apparently don't comprehend found that children who lacked positive role models of the same gender tended to be less happy than their peers. And it never once mentioned either homosexuality or same sex marriage, nor did it specify who could be a positive same gender role model.

Children of a "homosexual marriage" will have one of each gender as a parent, really? Are you trying to say that a sperm bank is a parent? Or a donor womb is a parent?

The Prince's Trust survey said that a boy raised without a father or a girl without a mother is poised to suffer psychologically in real and statisically-proven ways.

FACT a lesbian marriage deprives a boy of a father. FACT a gay-male marriage deprives a girl of a mother. Structurally, the Prince's Trust survey APPLIES TO GAY MARRIAGES.

I thought I was pretty clear that I was speaking biologically rather than in a nurturing sense when I said children still must have a mother and a father.

The Prince's Trust Youth Index said that children raised without a positive role model of the same gender were less well off than those who had one. It did not, at any time, say that such a role model must be a parent, or that children with two parents in the home automatically had a positive same gendered role model. It never mentioned same sex marriage or homosexuality, nor did it compare single parent homes to dual parent homes of any type. It said almost none of the things you claim it did. Moreover, the survey did not ask about same gender role models in subsequent editions, which seems strange if, as you imply and outright claim, same gender role models is the focus of the survey.

Quick! Post another link and then lie about what's contained therein!

 

[Montrovant]

Oh what, now are you going to threaten to commit suicide as a rebuttal to the truth? That's not enough to subject children to your brand new and repugnant social experiment that deprives boys of dads and girls of moms.. Sorry, kids come first. In fact, untreated mental illness can be cyclic and socially transmitted. So to spare kids further derangement is the most humane thing anyone could do in this situation.

Consult the Prince's Trust for details..

You had a mother and father. But you seek to institutionalize the lack of that to children who cannot vote to contend with you or fend off using them as lab rats..

One other thing. How do you know who on this board may have been raised without a mother or father in their lives? I have seen you on multiple occasions now claim that someone was raised with a mother and father and I wonder, how do you know that to be true? Any poster here may have had an absent parent, but you feel the need to interject personal family history into the discussion.

 

[Silhouette]

I thought I was pretty clear that I was speaking biologically rather than in a nurturing sense when I said children still must have a mother and a father.

That would be odd. You constructed on purpose to not make that clear; and it looks deceptive, dishonest and diversionary. You know this thread is about the damaging PSYCHOLOGICAL effects of sons not having fathers or daughters not having mothers AROUND WHILE THEY'RE GROWING UP..

You had a mom and dad growing up, yes?

 

[Silhouette]

One other thing. How do you know who on this board may have been raised without a mother or father in their lives? I have seen you on multiple occasions now claim that someone was raised with a mother and father and I wonder, how do you know that to be true? Any poster here may have had an absent parent, but you feel the need to interject personal family history into the discussion.

Statistically. If you are at or near my age group, statistically you had both a mother and father in the home.

There's no predicting what will happen once the base structure is in place. What is predictable is that a son needs a father and a daughter needs a mother.