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

[rightwinger]

Once you start using pedophiles as an argument against gays, you have lost the argument

Not when you consider that Harvey Milk, LGBT sexual icon was a pedophile; they all know it and defend him instead of denouncing him for it..then it becomes significant when you consider children are involved as the most important parties to marriage...

A sample of one., 35 years ago......and an unsubstantiated one at that

 

[g5000]

I really don't feel like reading 8 pages of another "I hate fags and wish everyone would stop talking about them" topic. Has anyone pointed out to the retard who started this topic that the kids call their lesbian parents "Mom" and "Mom", and their gay male parents "Dad" and "Dad"?

Yes- we are just all wondering what the kids raised by wolves call their parents- I mean is it appropriate to call your mother '*****'?

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Only the Lord can explain why both male and female were created and why their coming together is the only way that recreating can ever happen. To me, if both parents are of the same gender, the child will miss out on a having a child/parent relationship with the gender person that is not present. A boy will miss out on a father/son relationship if both his parents are female and a girl will miss out on a mother/daughter relationship if both of her parents are males. Yeah, the kids can always go looking for what is missing in their lives themselves, but in my opinion, they shouldn't have to do such a thing when their parents are supposed to be the one who provide for the children that they choose to have in their homes.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Jo,

If that is really your concern - then shouldn't you first focus on the milions of children missing that opposite gender in the house because they are being raised by a single mom or dad, or a single grandparent?

We do not require that heterosexuals prove that they will be "perfect" parents before we allow them to marry. Why would you expect from homosexual parents what you don't expect from heterosexual parents?

To me, when a person becomes a single parent, the first thing that they should do is look for someone of the opposite gender to at least be a part of the child's life as much as they can be.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[Montrovant]

Nothing like Sil once again repeatedly posting the same crap she posts over and over again across various threads she starts on the evils of gay marriage......and then complaining that others are spamming.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Sure they can. But even if choose to call them dad/dad or mom/mom, who cares?

Recognition of gay marriage is coming at a federal level; therefore, legal in all states. Get used to it.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. And this without regard to what those saddled with mental disorder 'feel' about it.

You see scamp, there is no right to perpetuate deviancy. And that is because such infringes upon the means of individuals to exercise their God-given rights.

 

[Silhouette]

Not when you consider that Harvey Milk, LGBT sexual icon was a pedophile; they all know it and defend him instead of denouncing him for it..then it becomes significant when you consider children are involved as the most important parties to marriage...

A sample of one., 35 years ago......and an unsubstantiated one at that

Milk's biography available at any library TODAY. Documented ongoing sodomy of a minor boy by Harvey Milk and many others at or near the boy's age that were homeless/addled on drugs (mentally challenged/drug rape...both felony sexual assaults against minors) while 40-something Milk was sodomizing them. LGBTs don't denounce this but instead celebrate Milk for this...and knowing this, commissioned a postage stamp of Milk (2014) with rainbow "USA" on it...(over 60 LGBT groups in the US, Canada and Mexico got this done..we can assume one of those people read Milk's biography..)

And of course Kevin Jennings, (current) gay education czar whose curriculum (to minors) included "fisting" and the joys of anal sex (as the rate of HIV skyrockets in sexually impressionable adolescent boys trying the joys of anal sex..).

Terry Bean of Portland, OR, major LGBT lobbying funder arrested (2013) on suspicion of sodomizing a minor teen boy (he was 60-something at the time)

I think we have enough of a contemporary pattern to work with.

 

[mikegriffith1]

There's a ton, a veritable ton, of science on the fact that men and women's brains are wired differently and that they respond to stimuli differently. That's one reason that there's certain nurturing that only a mom can provide, and other nurturing that only a dad can provide.

Anyone who is human and who is willing to be honest knows that there are times when a child needs to talk to Mom and other times when a child needs to talk to Dad. That is just human reality, and all the PC lies and pseudo-science in the world won't change that.

It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

 

[bodecea]

Once you start using pedophiles as an argument against gays, you have lost the argument

Not when you consider that Harvey Milk, LGBT sexual icon was a pedophile; they all know it and defend him instead of denouncing him for it..then it becomes significant when you consider children are involved as the most important parties to marriage...

No. Harvey Milk was not a pedophile. But it's very telling how you keep trying to parade that lie over and over and over again.

 

[bodecea]

There's a ton, a veritable ton, of science on the fact that men and women's brains are wired differently and that they respond to stimuli differently. That's one reason that there's certain nurturing that only a mom can provide, and other nurturing that only a dad can provide.

Anyone who is human and who is willing to be honest knows that there are times when a child needs to talk to Mom and other times when a child needs to talk to Dad. That is just human reality, and all the PC lies and pseudo-science in the world won't change that.

It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Wait. You believe there was an Adam and Eve? and you want to lecture us on reality?

 

[bodecea]

Sure they can. But even if choose to call them dad/dad or mom/mom, who cares?

Recognition of gay marriage is coming at a federal level; therefore, legal in all states. Get used to it.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. And this without regard to what those saddled with mental disorder 'feel' about it.

You see scamp, there is no right to perpetuate deviancy. And that is because such infringes upon the means of individuals to exercise their God-given rights.

To you...and that is fine for you. But not for everyone.

 

[g5000]

There's a ton, a veritable ton, of science on the fact that men and women's brains are wired differently and that they respond to stimuli differently. That's one reason that there's certain nurturing that only a mom can provide, and other nurturing that only a dad can provide.

Anyone who is human and who is willing to be honest knows that there are times when a child needs to talk to Mom and other times when a child needs to talk to Dad. That is just human reality, and all the PC lies and pseudo-science in the world won't change that.

You should probably give this lecture to Newt Gingrich, and every other man with children who has divorced his wife, and vice versa.

Sorry, but gays aren't the ones destroying the family unit or marriage. People like Newt Gingrich and Mark Sanford and the Clintons are.

Nice try.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nebraska, California, Alabama, Oklahoma etc. etc. etc. do not have to demolish their state's discreet interests on behalf of children/future citizens there at the tyrannical command of Justices publicly performing gay-weddings before the Hearing. Only states that have self-ratified gay marriage to subject their children as lab rats calling a man "mommy" or a woman "daddy" have actual, real, legal gay marriage. All the rest are illegal results of judicial artifice and tyranny.

Your position is polluted by your own personal bias and your position lacks a well constructed, well thought out, evidence supported argument.

It's also a sort of circular argument, because what you're claiming is that children of gay parents are harmed by the inherent anti-gay bias built into our culture,

therefore we should cave in to the bias to spare the children.

That's an old worn out argument often used to argue against mixed race marriages.

 

[Politico]

Sure they can. But even if choose to call them dad/dad or mom/mom, who cares?

Recognition of gay marriage is coming at a federal level; therefore, legal in all states. Get used to it.

The point is not about recognition of gay marriage. It is how you can't call two men mom and dad. They should be referred to logically as giver and receiver.

 

[Silhouette]

Nebraska, California, Alabama, Oklahoma etc. etc. etc. do not have to demolish their state's discreet interests on behalf of children/future citizens there at the tyrannical command of Justices publicly performing gay-weddings before the Hearing. Only states that have self-ratified gay marriage to subject their children as lab rats calling a man "mommy" or a woman "daddy" have actual, real, legal gay marriage. All the rest are illegal results of judicial artifice and tyranny.

Your position is polluted by your own personal bias and your position lacks a well constructed, well thought out, evidence supported argument.

That's it? That's all you've got as a rebuttal?

I'd say your rebutal is polluted by your inability to make lucid and poignant points to refute what I just said.

I asked Syriusly several spammed-pages back which one of her "married couple" (false since they claim it was done in California where it has always been illegal) lesbians does "their" son call "Dad"? I don't recall her ever answering that question. And it's a very important question. Read the Prince's Trust link in the OP for details. I'm not the one that came to the conclusions in that survey of young adults being raised without their gender present as a role model (the largest survey of its kind); the Prince's Trust funded that, wrote it up and drew the conclusions from statistics.

Talk to the statistics, don't talk to me. Gay marraige is bad for 50% of the kids involved in the brand spanking new social experiment..

Rock bottom minimum, since there is evidence suggesting AT LEAST that gay marriage MAY BE bad for those 50% of kids, the decision of whether or not to use those 50% of kids as lab rats in the brand new social experiment should be up to the 10s of millions in each state instead of nine fogies in DC, two of which have already declared they are blinded by bias towards the kids' predictable demise (Ginsburg and Kagan performing gay weddings while the question of whether or not the structure (meaning of the word) of marriage should be fundamentally retooled by a federal mandate)

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nebraska, California, Alabama, Oklahoma etc. etc. etc. do not have to demolish their state's discreet interests on behalf of children/future citizens there at the tyrannical command of Justices publicly performing gay-weddings before the Hearing. Only states that have self-ratified gay marriage to subject their children as lab rats calling a man "mommy" or a woman "daddy" have actual, real, legal gay marriage. All the rest are illegal results of judicial artifice and tyranny.

Your position is polluted by your own personal bias and your position lacks a well constructed, well thought out, evidence supported argument.

That's it? That's all you've got as a rebuttal?

I'd say your rebutal is polluted by your inability to make lucid and poignant points to refute what I just said.

I asked Syriusly several spammed-pages back which one of her "married couple" (false since they claim it was done in California where it has always been illegal) lesbians does "their" son call "Dad"? I don't recall her ever answering that question. And it's a very important question. Read the Prince's Trust link in the OP for details. I'm not the one that came to the conclusions in that survey of young adults being raised without their gender present as a role model (the largest survey of its kind); the Prince's Trust funded that, wrote it up and drew the conclusions from statistics.

Talk to the statistics, don't talk to me. Gay marraige is bad for 50% of the kids involved in the brand spanking new social experiment..

Rock bottom minimum, since there is evidence suggesting AT LEAST that gay marriage MAY BE bad for those 50% of kids, the decision of whether or not to use those 50% of kids as lab rats in the brand new social experiment should be up to the 10s of millions in each state instead of nine fogies in DC, two of which have already declared they are blinded by bias towards the kids' predictable demise (Ginsburg and Kagan performing gay weddings while the question of whether or not the structure (meaning of the word) of marriage should be fundamentally retooled by a federal mandate)

You offer no evidence.

 

[Montrovant]

Nebraska, California, Alabama, Oklahoma etc. etc. etc. do not have to demolish their state's discreet interests on behalf of children/future citizens there at the tyrannical command of Justices publicly performing gay-weddings before the Hearing. Only states that have self-ratified gay marriage to subject their children as lab rats calling a man "mommy" or a woman "daddy" have actual, real, legal gay marriage. All the rest are illegal results of judicial artifice and tyranny.

Your position is polluted by your own personal bias and your position lacks a well constructed, well thought out, evidence supported argument.

That's it? That's all you've got as a rebuttal?

I'd say your rebutal is polluted by your inability to make lucid and poignant points to refute what I just said.

I asked Syriusly several spammed-pages back which one of her "married couple" (false since they claim it was done in California where it has always been illegal) lesbians does "their" son call "Dad"? I don't recall her ever answering that question. And it's a very important question. Read the Prince's Trust link in the OP for details. I'm not the one that came to the conclusions in that survey of young adults being raised without their gender present as a role model (the largest survey of its kind); the Prince's Trust funded that, wrote it up and drew the conclusions from statistics.

Talk to the statistics, don't talk to me. Gay marraige is bad for 50% of the kids involved in the brand spanking new social experiment..

Rock bottom minimum, since there is evidence suggesting AT LEAST that gay marriage MAY BE bad for those 50% of kids, the decision of whether or not to use those 50% of kids as lab rats in the brand new social experiment should be up to the 10s of millions in each state instead of nine fogies in DC, two of which have already declared they are blinded by bias towards the kids' predictable demise (Ginsburg and Kagan performing gay weddings while the question of whether or not the structure (meaning of the word) of marriage should be fundamentally retooled by a federal mandate)

Except, of course, that the Prince's Trust Youth Index never came to the conclusions that you claim it did; never discussed homosexuals or homosexual marriage; never said anything about calling a parent mom or dad; never defined the positive role models discussed as having to be a parent; basically, you have (repeatedly) pretended that your own conclusions are those of a British survey done some years ago.

Oh, and once again, as a person who has posted the same link, the same arguments, often verbatim, in multiple threads for quite a while now, it is absolutely hilarious to see you complain of others spamming.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In order to believe that a child is harmed by having 2 moms instead of a mom and dad,

you have to be pre-disposed to anti-same sex marriage prejudice. That means your argument is premised on your own bias.

And that means your argument has no merit.

 

[Silhouette]

No NY, in order to believe a child could be harmed by not having their gender represented as an adult role model, you'd have to study the statistical analysis of the survey of the Prince's Trust.

You see, some folks prefer data over cult dogma and "strategic silencing" of the debate about what is good for kids and what isn't...

Except, of course, that the Prince's Trust Youth Index never came to the conclusions that you claim it did; never discussed homosexuals or homosexual marriage..

Didn't have to...

...you see...the physical structure of so-called "gay marriage" guarantees 100% of the time a complete lack to 50% of the kids involved of the gender they are as an adult role model and a feeling of their place in a functioning adult society (children extrapolate this mentally in their formative years to find their place in the world). That is a flaw of structure that a "gay marriage" cannot escape, even if both lesbians or both gays are the second coming of Jesus Christ. The psychological component necessary for proper formation of the child's healthy ego and esteem is lacking and can never be duplicated. Children's radar for deception is like a laser-beam. No adult has yet fooled the young child. It's why their questions are always "so annoying" in direct proportion to how enmeshed in denial an adult is as their parent..

You say my conclusions don't match the Prince's Trust eh? I say they do. It's a physical structure thing. You wouldn't object would you to each individual reader here visiting the study and its conclusions and reading for themselves and then deciding for themselves whether or not it applies to gay marriage? I'm perfectly comfortable with that and in fact encourage all readers here not to take my word for it but to read for themselves...absolutely!

I'm sure you agree with that, right?

 

[mdk]

Nebraska, California, Alabama, Oklahoma etc. etc. etc. do not have to demolish their state's discreet interests on behalf of children/future citizens there at the tyrannical command of Justices publicly performing gay-weddings before the Hearing. Only states that have self-ratified gay marriage to subject their children as lab rats calling a man "mommy" or a woman "daddy" have actual, real, legal gay marriage. All the rest are illegal results of judicial artifice and tyranny.

Your position is polluted by your own personal bias and your position lacks a well constructed, well thought out, evidence supported argument.

That's it? That's all you've got as a rebuttal?

I'd say your rebutal is polluted by your inability to make lucid and poignant points to refute what I just said.

I asked Syriusly several spammed-pages back which one of her "married couple" (false since they claim it was done in California where it has always been illegal) lesbians does "their" son call "Dad"? I don't recall her ever answering that question. And it's a very important question. Read the Prince's Trust link in the OP for details. I'm not the one that came to the conclusions in that survey of young adults being raised without their gender present as a role model (the largest survey of its kind); the Prince's Trust funded that, wrote it up and drew the conclusions from statistics.

Talk to the statistics, don't talk to me. Gay marraige is bad for 50% of the kids involved in the brand spanking new social experiment..

Rock bottom minimum, since there is evidence suggesting AT LEAST that gay marriage MAY BE bad for those 50% of kids, the decision of whether or not to use those 50% of kids as lab rats in the brand new social experiment should be up to the 10s of millions in each state instead of nine fogies in DC, two of which have already declared they are blinded by bias towards the kids' predictable demise (Ginsburg and Kagan performing gay weddings while the question of whether or not the structure (meaning of the word) of marriage should be fundamentally retooled by a federal mandate)

The fact that you continue to lie about the findings in the Prince's Trust goes to show how bankrupt your position truly is concerning gay marriage.

Show us where The Prince's Trust mentions same-sex parenting in the study?
Show us where The Prince's Trust states that role models can only be found in one's parents?

You can't...b/c it doesn't. You are taking the findings of this study and twisting them to fit your anti-gay narrative. You gas on about morality and yet lie as effortlessly as I breath concerning.

 

[Silhouette]

Let people draw their own conclusions about the Prince's Trust "mdk". You're not afraid of that, right?