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

[g5000]

Why are you homophobes constantly seeking stories on the gay lifestyle and shoving them in our faces with all these topics?

Gay marriage would barely register a blip on this forum or in real life if it wasn't for all you gay panickers.

 

[Silhouette]

Some of us "homophobes" (reverse-bullying anyone?) care about the fate of states' rights acting as custodians of children within our discreet communities...

Like I said..

...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..

 

[g5000]

"I wish everyone would shut up about fags...except me."

 

[g5000]

The psychological component necessary for proper formation of the child's healthy ego and esteem is lacking and can never be duplicated.

Link?

 

[g5000]

Children of same-sex couples are happier and healthier than peers research shows

“It’s often suggested that children with same-sex parents have poorer outcomes because they’re missing a parent of a particular sex. But research my colleagues and I published in the journal BMC Public Health shows this isn’t the case,” lead researcher Simon Crouch wrote on the Conversation.

 

[mdk]

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

Trust me, the lies you to tell yourself so you can feel better about your position doesn't scare me. It only exposes the fact that while you endless blather on about morality you have no problem lying to advance you agenda. Every assertion you have made about the findings of The Prince's Trust is complete and utter bullshit. If your position was valid you wouldn't need to lie.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

It certainly didn't matter when Indians were subjugated to white ways.......

 

[g5000]

Same-sex marriage and children s well-being Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center

Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents. Lack of opportunity for same-gender couples to marry adds to families’ stress, which affects the health and welfare of all household members.”

“The 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their age-matched counterparts

 

[g5000]

Continuing:

“Children of same-sex couples are as likely to make normal progress through school as the children of most other family structures… the advantage of heterosexual married couples is mostly due to their higher socioeconomic status. Children of all family types (including children of same-sex couples) are far more likely to make normal progress through school than are children living in group quarters (such as orphanages and shelters).”

“Gay and lesbian adoptive parents in this sample fell into the desirable range of the parenting scale and their children have strength levels equal to or exceeding the scale norms.

“Analyses revealed statistically significant effect size differences between groups for one of the six outcomes: parent-child relationship. Results confirm previous studies in this current body of literature, suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents fare equally well to children raised by heterosexual parents.”

 

[mdk]

Same-sex marriage and children s well-being Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center

Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents. Lack of opportunity for same-gender couples to marry adds to families’ stress, which affects the health and welfare of all household members.”

“The 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their age-matched counterparts

This study; like anything that runs contrary to Sil's claim; will be entirely ignored, that or she'll gas on about the APA. You'll have better luck trying to educate a house plant at this point.

 

[Silhouette]

Trust me, the lies you to tell yourself so you can feel better about your position doesn't scare me. It only exposes the fact that while you endless blather on about morality you have no problem lying to advance you agenda. Every assertion you have made about the findings of The Prince's Trust is complete and utter bullshit. If your position was valid you wouldn't need to lie.

So you won't worry about people here reading the Prince's Trust survey and deciding for themselves if the physical structure of so-called "gay marriage" harms 50% of kids involved, right? You'd be fine with people deciding for themselves, right?

Some of us "homophobes" (reverse-bullying anyone?) care about the fate of states' rights acting as custodians of children within our discreet communities...
Like I said..
...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..

 

[Skylar]

Trust me, the lies you to tell yourself so you can feel better about your position doesn't scare me. It only exposes the fact that while you endless blather on about morality you have no problem lying to advance you agenda. Every assertion you have made about the findings of The Prince's Trust is complete and utter bullshit. If your position was valid you wouldn't need to lie.

So you won't worry about people here reading the Prince's Trust survey and deciding for themselves if the physical structure of so-called "gay marriage" harms 50% of kids involved, right? You'd be fine with people deciding for themselves, right?

The Prince Trust Study doesn't say any of what you just did. It never mentions gay marriage, same sex parents, nor measures the effects of any kind of parenting.

You hallucinated it all. And its highly unlikely that the USSC is going to overturn itself based on your imagination.

 

[mdk]

Trust me, the lies you to tell yourself so you can feel better about your position doesn't scare me. It only exposes the fact that while you endless blather on about morality you have no problem lying to advance you agenda. Every assertion you have made about the findings of The Prince's Trust is complete and utter bullshit. If your position was valid you wouldn't need to lie.

So you won't worry about people here reading the Prince's Trust survey and deciding for themselves if the physical structure of so-called "gay marriage" harms 50% of kids involved, right? You'd be fine with people deciding for themselves, right?

Some of us "homophobes" (reverse-bullying anyone?) care about the fate of states' rights acting as custodians of children within our discreet communities...
Like I said..
...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..

Quite the opposite in fact, the more people that actually read The Prince's Trust the more it exposes your lies and your utter misrepresentation of it's findings.

The truth; much like children to you, is something you simply discard if it doesn't advance your anti-gay narrative.

 

[Silhouette]

Well If I "hallucinated" the extrapolation of the results of the Prince's Trust Survey (the largest of its kind) and what I read from it is "quite the opposite" of what it held in its statistical conclusion about a child lacking his same gender as an adult role model, then you would have zero objections to others reading it to see "how obviously I was wrong" in the premise of this thread, right?

So all you readers out there, be sure to check the OP's link to the Prince's Trust survey, read that OP, check all the links in it for accuracy, and then you too can "see how wrong Silhouette is". Don't miss this opportunity! Skylar and mdk both urge you to read it carefully to find my "mistakes"!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Boy the left is obsessed with homosexuality, infanticide & drugs... what a crew.

 

[Skylar]

Well If I "hallucinated" the extrapolation of the results of the Prince's Trust Survey (the largest of its kind) and what I read from it is "quite the opposite" of what it held in its statistical conclusion about a child lacking his same gender as an adult role model, then you would have zero objections to others reading it to see "how obviously I was wrong" in the premise of this thread, right?

And where does the Prince Trust study say that a good same sex role model must be a parent?

So all you readers out there, be sure to check the link to the Prince's Trust survey, read that OP, check all the links in it for accuracy, and then you too can "see how wrong Silhouette is". Don't miss this opportunity! Skylar and mdk both urge you to read it carefully to find my "mistakes"!

By all means, check it out. It never so much as mentions gays. Or gay marriage. Or same sex marriage. Or measures the effects of any kind of parenting. Silo made all of that up.

In fact, every instance of a young person without a good same sex role model cited specifically in the study.....

......had a single parent. Not a same sex parent.

Which Silo knows. But *really* hopes you don't notice.

 

[deltex1]

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

Let's try three...mom dad and fido.

Three gay Thai men tie the knot in fairytale ceremony Daily Mail Online

 

[NYcarbineer]

Some of us "homophobes" (reverse-bullying anyone?) care about the fate of states' rights acting as custodians of children within our discreet communities...

Like I said..

...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..

It is entirely subjective and without a factual basis of support to claim that same sex parenting is so highly detrimental to the wellbeing of a child that the government can see it as having a compelling interest to deny the right of marriage to same sex couples.

That is the fundamental flaw of your argument.

 

[Syriusly]

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....

Milk's biography does not mention sodomy once. Does not mention sex with a minor even once.

As usual- you are just lying.

 

[Syriusly]

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. )

Not an important question.

What is important is what does the 'son' raised by a wolf call his wolf mother?