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

[Silhouette]

It's almost as if opponents of gay marriage are saying different sex partners are always better than same sex partners. And that's demonstrably wrong, because the data shows that some kids have horrid outcomes with different sex couples and some kids have good outcomes with same sex couples. I suppose the ideal would be Ozzy and Harriett, but nothing's ideal. I do think we can say two parent households are likely to have better outcomes simply because so many single parents are in poverty. And the one thing Sil has proven .... poor kids with one parent have statistically not as good outcomes.

So, the party line is to continually divert the topic away from children and their needs for parents and instead turn it to "adults and their rights". Boys need fathers. Girls need mothers. Gay marriage's structure deprives children of their needs. This is indisputable.

 

[Silhouette]

So lets talk about the two groups of children:
a) Children being raised by gay parents- how does preventing them from marrying help those children?
b) Children being raised by non-gay parents- how does preventing homosexuals from marrying help those children?
Simple as that- how does preventing homosexuals from marrying help any children?
Any children at all.

By providing children of the future into time and numbers unknown with states who are allowed to only incentivize homes with a mother and father. Thereby increasing every child's chance of winding up with a mother and father in their home; which is in their best psychological interest.

You are talking about "some children today". I'm talking about all children into the future. This is an institutional question that is the states' supreme authority to decide. Some want to use children as lab rats in this brand new social experiment and the vast majority don't.

 

[Syriusly]

So lets talk about the two groups of children:
a) Children being raised by gay parents- how does preventing them from marrying help those children?
b) Children being raised by non-gay parents- how does preventing homosexuals from marrying help those children?
Simple as that- how does preventing homosexuals from marrying help any children?
Any children at all.

By providing children of the future into time and numbers unknown with states who are allowed to only incentivize homes with a mother and father. Thereby increasing every child's chance of winding up with a mother and father in their home; which is in their best psychological interest.

You are talking about "some children today". I'm talking about all children into the future. This is an institutional question that is the states' supreme authority to decide. Some want to use children as lab rats in this brand new social experiment and the vast majority don't.

What a vague bunch of crap- and you didn't answer the questions- because you can't

So lets talk about the two groups of children:
a) Children being raised by gay parents- how does preventing them from marrying help those children?
b) Children being raised by non-gay parents- how does preventing homosexuals from marrying help those children?

Simple as that- how does preventing homosexuals from marrying help any children?

Any children at all

 

[Syriusly]

It's almost as if opponents of gay marriage are saying different sex partners are always better than same sex partners. And that's demonstrably wrong, because the data shows that some kids have horrid outcomes with different sex couples and some kids have good outcomes with same sex couples. I suppose the ideal would be Ozzy and Harriett, but nothing's ideal. I do think we can say two parent households are likely to have better outcomes simply because so many single parents are in poverty. And the one thing Sil has proven .... poor kids with one parent have statistically not as good outcomes.

So, the party line is to continually divert the topic away from children and their needs for parents and instead turn it to "adults and their rights". Boys need fathers. Girls need mothers. Gay marriage's structure deprives children of their needs. This is indisputable.

That is just pure crap.

Gay marriage doesn't require children.
If Gay parents have children- preventing them from marrying just ensures that their children are deprived of having married parents.

Why do you hate the children of gay parents?

 

[Silhouette]

Why do you hate children into time and numbers unforseen, numbers that vastly outweigh any children caught up in gay or polygamy or incest homes today?

As you know, this is an institutional question the Court will have to decide: "Should we 5 Justices dictate to the states that untold numbers of children into the future will have to be subjected as lab rats to this neo-redaction of the word "marriage" or not"?

Clearly the states are the custodians of children's best interest and need to be able to act to incentivize the best, not just "anything goes" marriage environment.

 

[Silhouette]

Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

[Skylar]

Why do you hate children into time and numbers unforseen, numbers that vastly outweigh any children caught up in gay or polygamy or incest homes today?

And how will denying marriage to same sex parents help their 'hypothetical' children. As you've essentially conceded the fact that it will only hurt those children of same sex parents alive now.

 

[Skylar]

As you know, this is an institutional question the Court will have to decide: "Should we 5 Justices dictate to the states that untold numbers of children into the future will have to be subjected as lab rats to this neo-redaction of the word "marriage" or not"?

Nope. You have no idea what you're talking about. This is the questions that the courts will be ruling on in June:

The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:

1)Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does theFourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

You've literally hallucinated your own questions before the court. And then laughably insisted that the courts are bound to what you hallucinated.

Um, no they aren't.

Worse, you can't tell us how denying marriage to same sex couples will help their children. And the courts have already recognized the immediate legal harm that is caused to these children when you deny same sex parents marriage.

So your proposal only harms these children. It doesn't benefit them.

Why would we ever do as you propose? It only hurts children.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh..lol...flip flop, flip flop. First it's adults who will prevail without consideration childrens' civil rights to a mother and father. Then it's "Kennedy says this is about the children", then back again, and back again and back again. I'm sticking with the kids bro. This question sits poised to affect the one civil rights group left that cannot vote and whose numbers are unfathomable as to the far-reaches of the impact of just 5 people in DC.

 

[Skylar]

Oh..lol...flip flop, flip flop.

Then tell us....how does denying marriage to parents of same sex parents help their children?

Its such a simple question. And yet it sends you into hysteric block posts that talk about anyone BUT children of same sex parents.

If your claims have merit, why run when they are challenged? Why abandon your topic?

 

[Silhouette]

Oh..lol...flip flop, flip flop.

Then tell us....how does denying marriage to parents of same sex parents help their children?

Its such a simple question. And yet it sends you into hysteric block posts that talk about anyone BUT children of same sex parents.

If your claims have merit, why run when they are challenged? Why abandon your topic?

Better question: How does insitutionalizing an experimental-marriage by federal force upon the states help untold numbers of children the future who will be structurally-deprived; boys of fathers and girls of mothers, being used this way as psychological lab rats?

 

[Skylar]

Oh..lol...flip flop, flip flop.

Then tell us....

Its such a simple question. And yet it sends you into hysteric block posts that talk about anyone BUT children of same sex parents.

If your claims have merit, why run when they are challenged? Why abandon your topic?

Better question: How does insitutionalizing an experimental-marriage by federal force upon the states help untold numbers of children the future who will be structurally-deprived; boys of fathers and girls of mothers, being used this way as psychological lab rats?

Oh, I'm quite happy with my question.

How does denying marriage to parents of same sex parents help their children?

And I giggle every time I see you run from it. There is no answer, as denying marriage to same sex parents offers NO benefit to their children. But instead, extensive and immediate legal harm.

Can you see why your ilk lost 44 of 46 cases? With the USSC preserving EVERY lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans. And refused stays for EVERY state that tried to defend such stays?

If you don't.....you will in June.

 

[Silhouette]

There has been no loss of any case while it's appealing. And if you want to talk about the fairness of denying stays in the interim, we can skip over to the "shadow justice" or "kagan should recuse" threads if you like?

 

[Skylar]

There has been no loss of any case while it's appealing. And if you want to talk about the fairness of denying stays in the interim, we can skip over to the "shadow justice" or "kagan should recuse" threads if you like?

Odd, you wouldn't even touch my question......ignoring those children entirely.

How does denying marriage to parents of same sex parents help their children?

Now what do you think the odds are that you'll refuse to discuss them again, and pretend they don't exist? So much for your 'concern for these children'. You can't use them to hurt gays, so they're irrelevant to you.

And same sex marriage bans have been overturned 44 of the 46 times the federal courts have ruled on them. Which is why gay marriage is legal in 37 of 50 States. Ignore as you will. Gays will keep getting married.

 

[Syriusly]

Why do you hate children into time and numbers unforseen, numbers .

LoL- not only am I a parent- unlike you- I have already pointed out actual harm to actual children by preventing their parents from marrying.

You have yet to explain any actual harm to any actual children by allowing homosexuals to marry.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh..lol...flip flop, flip flop. First it's adults who will prevail without consideration childrens' civil rights to a mother and father. Then it's "Kennedy says this is about the children", then back again, and back again and back again. I'm sticking with the kids bro. This question sits poised to affect the one civil rights group left that cannot vote and whose numbers are unfathomable as to the far-reaches of the impact of just 5 people in DC.

Talking with yourself again Silly?

As Justice Kennedy said- it is about the children- the only children that are harmed by 'gay marriage' are the children of those who are not allowed

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

That is the opinion of one of the Justice who will decide this issue- not your crazyass claims.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, I'm quite happy with my question.

How does denying marriage to parents of same sex parents help their children?.

OK, fair enough. There are two questions pending before the Court:

1. Your question "How does denying marriage to parents of same sex parents help their children?"

And

2. My question: "How does insitutionalizing an experimental-marriage by federal force upon the states help untold numbers of children the future who will be structurally-deprived; boys of fathers and girls of mothers, being used this way as psychological lab rats?"

The question of whether or not a couple "as married" of same gendered people should be subsidized "as parents" is the heart of the question isn't it? I could say that denying them marriage helps their children in the long run by teaching them that two people of the same gender cannot be man/wife, father/mother. It would be teaching them that the other gender missing actually matters a whole helluv a lot to society. So much so that society cannot grant the new experiment legitimacy. We could tell those children we are sorry. That for the good of all children one day they will understand. THAT is how it could benefit those particular kids and the great swath of kids in general into time unforseen and our society by extension.

The US Supreme Court will have to weigh your question against my question, do their homework thoroughly and well. Then they will have to decide if this excruciatingly important question should be determined by just five of them for the entire country's children into time unknowable (2 of them have already indicated bias for this social experiment using kids who can't vote); or by the tens of millions within the individual sovereign states to decide.

That's really it in a nutshell and what faces the Court next month.

 

[WorldWatcher]

OK, fair enough. There are two questions pending before the Court:

1. Your question "How does denying marriage to parents of same sex parents help their children?"

And

2. My question: "How does insitutionalizing an experimental-marriage by federal force upon the states help untold numbers of children the future who will be structurally-deprived; boys of fathers and girls of mothers, being used this way as psychological lab rats?"

Neither of those questions are the ones before the court. The questions the SCOTUS listed in it's orders are:

The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:

1)Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?​

Those are the questions the court says at are at issue, not the questions you imagine are at issue.

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

OK, fair enough. There are two questions pending before the Court:

1. Your question "How does denying marriage to parents of same sex parents help their children?"

And

2. My question: "How does insitutionalizing an experimental-marriage by federal force upon the states help untold numbers of children the future who will be structurally-deprived; boys of fathers and girls of mothers, being used this way as psychological lab rats?"

Neither of those questions are the ones before the court. The questions the SCOTUS listed in it's orders are: The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:
1)Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Your #1 & #2 condensed is "Should the fed mandate gay marriage across the 50 states".

That is factually the gist of what the parties are asking the Court to do. "Cut to the chase". "Long story short". "In a nutshell".

So....

There is more to consider than a teensy weensy little group whining to the Court that their virulent militant litigation machine came up against a brick wall at the state level to force its weird and frankly cult-like ways upon the People and the Governed without their consent.

There is the consideration of what such a neo-experiment in redacting the word marriage will actually MEAN to the Governed whose consent has been ripped away. And the consideration of how important ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters as a federally-blessed institution will mean to ALL children into TIME UNFORESEEN...cast thusly by just 5 people in DC.

Such an important redaction to the physical structure of society requires the consent of the governed, because this is about behaviors, not race.

And don't even get me started on WHICH behaviors would get the blessing and which wouldn't, and how the Court would be faced with sorting that out in the extreme near-future if this experiment with gays gets a federal blessing. To my knowledge, the Constitution has never provided for minority behavior groups "as a protected class", when the majority finds their play-acting "mom and dad" to kids as an unacceptable and damaging ruse.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, I'm quite happy with my question.

How does denying marriage to parents of same sex parents help their children?.

OK, fair enough. There are two questions pending before the Court:

Not those two questions. These are the two questions pending before the court:

The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

No matter what you imagine, hallucinate, make up, or delude yourself into believing.......the questions pending before the court regarding gay marriage remain listed above. And those are the question the court will be answering. Not whatever bullshit you make up.

So I ask again, "How does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

You have no answer. As there is no benefit. There is, however, tremendous harm to children caused by denying marriage to their same sex parents.

"And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....

.....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

So your proposal to deny marriage to their same sex parents provides no benefits to these children. And causes them tremendous harm.

Why in the **** would we *ever* do that to them?