The child to Skylar only has value if it is caught up in a homosexual lifestyle. If it is caught up in a polygamist lifestyle or an incest lifestyle, or a monosexual lifestyle (single parents) then suddenly it's not such a big deal if its parent(s) have the perks of marriage.
You're the one talking about the effects of gay marriage on children. Yet the moment I ask you what benefits of denying marriage to same sex parents would create for their children...
.....suddenly you abandon the topic. These 11 words destroy your argument utterly and completely:
How does denying marriage to same sex parents benefit their children?
Run.
YOU just accused ME of using kids in this debate for political expediency. Yet when I REPEATEDLY point out to you that this is about ALL children and not just a tiny fraction of them (your example of kids caught up in gay lifestyles alone, apart from all other children, their rights and best interests collectively), you use THAT as "proof that Sil doesn't care about children".
Your bullshit is so thick, you deviousness so profound that it's hard to know where to start, really.
Depriving ANY boy of a father and ANY girl of a mother as an incentivized institution (marriage) is wrong and detrimental to them COLLECTIVELY, OVER TIME. And THAT is the issue I have a problem with. My issue compassionately considers ALL children in a wide time continuum. Yours craftily considers a tiny subfraction of the word "children" in the present day. The Court has to weigh which is more important between the two. Their actions stand to snowball our culture into an unforseeable future, but one that has dark forshadowings already:
Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum.
Your manipulation of semantics stands to hurt kids, bottom line. Proof that you do not actually care about the children you supposedly are advocating for. You are just using them as a hinge to catapult gays into shattering the word "marriage" come hell or high water in the process..
We aren't talking about just homosexuals, "their children". We are talking about ALL children into the future, because marraige more than any other institution stands to shape their future, and they cannot vote. So this topic takes on an extra sense of urgency.
Here are 23 words that destroy your argument utterly and completely:
How does a federal-mandate that institutionalizes the structural-deprivation of boys of fathers and girls of mothers help ALL children into the unseen future?
Divorce is done..pay attention here...RELUCTANTLY...and yet again on behalf of children in the hopes their estranged & separated parents will marry their gender compliment again and provide the same structure as originally incentivized for children's best formative environment: father/mother.
That is another entirely invented fiction of yours.
Divorce in most states is 'no-fault'- and there is no 'reluctance' involved- the States allow couples to divorce REGARDLESS of whether they have children or whether they do not have children.
IF they do have children then the divorce proceedings will include custody hearings.
Of course if the parents are not married- then if the couple separates there is no clear custody mechanism like divorce affords- meaning of course that as usual- the children of unmarried couples- including unmarried gay couples- are put more at legal risk by the lack of marriage.
Why do you hate the children being raised by gay parents?
I ask this because you are so determined that those children do not have married parents, and I cannot figure out any other reason why you want harm to come to these children other than you for some reason despise the children of gay couples.
