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

[Silhouette]

Here's where your position is irrational.

1. You believe that same sex couples with children are harmful to those children.

2. You are willing to leave same sex marriage up to the states.

Question: why would you be willing to allow the states to sanction something you believe causes harm to children?

1. They are, they deprive 50% of children involved of their same gender as a role model. It's not their fault, it's a structural problem. And since it's a no-fault situation, the benefit of the choice always goes to the children because unlike gays, they cannot vote to affect their fate.

2. Thanks for acknowledging finally that that is the interim law that must be re-avered this year. We're talking about lifestyles, not a race of people.

You dodged the point, thus proving mine.

Hardly, you have yet to explain how two women or two men can provide both genders to kids involved in a "gay married home" as mom and dad? I'd like to hear how gays will get around this problem structurally. Please, entertain me with your explanation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's where your position is irrational.

1. You believe that same sex couples with children are harmful to those children.

2. You are willing to leave same sex marriage up to the states.

Question: why would you be willing to allow the states to sanction something you believe causes harm to children?

1. They are, they deprive 50% of children involved of their same gender as a role model. It's not their fault, it's a structural problem. And since it's a no-fault situation, the benefit of the choice always goes to the children because unlike gays, they cannot vote to affect their fate.

2. Thanks for acknowledging finally that that is the interim law that must be re-avered this year. We're talking about lifestyles, not a race of people.

You dodged the point, thus proving mine.

Hardly, you have yet to explain how two women or two men can provide both genders to kids involved in a "gay married home" as mom and dad? I'd like to hear how gays will get around this problem structurally. Please, entertain me with your explanation.

You're putting a requirement on same sex couples that we don't put on any other parents;

you are simply raising the level of discrimination against same sex couples.

 

[Silhouette]

You're putting a requirement on same sex couples that we don't put on any other parents;

you are simply raising the level of discrimination against same sex couples.

The Prince's Trust survey is simply describing that children need their gender as an adult role model or things go south for them mentally. Gay marriage cannot ever provide the best environment for 50% of the children involved. It's a structural thing. It has nothing to do with what you or I want or do. It simply is.

 

[Montrovant]

You're putting a requirement on same sex couples that we don't put on any other parents;

you are simply raising the level of discrimination against same sex couples.

The Prince's Trust survey is simply describing that children need their gender as an adult role model or things go south for them mentally. Gay marriage cannot ever provide the best environment for 50% of the children involved. It's a structural thing. It has nothing to do with what you or I want or do. It simply is.

The Prince's Trust Youth Index never specifies that only a parent can be a same-gender role model.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

And yet what we see is the right actually obsesively posting about homosexuality, and drugs.

I haven't seen anyone but conservatives post about infanticide-

You're putting a requirement on same sex couples that we don't put on any other parents;

you are simply raising the level of discrimination against same sex couples.

The Prince's Trust survey is simply describing that children need their gender as an adult role model or things go south for them mentally. Gay marriage cannot ever provide the best environment for 50% of the children involved. It's a structural thing. It has nothing to do with what you or I want or do. It simply is.

It does not such thing. If you can get a law passed that will take children away from single parents because they don't have insufficient 'role models' in the home,

then from there you can make your case against same sex couples.

See your problem?

 

[Silhouette]

It does not such thing. If you can get a law passed that will take children away from single parents because they don't have insufficient 'role models' in the home,

then from there you can make your case against same sex couples.

See your problem?

Nobody on earth is seeking to make laws to take children away from who is raising them now; not even from wolves, polygamists or incest parents. What is in question is enticing the BEST formative environment for children..

The state anticipates statistically that in any marriage children by birth, adoption, fostering or grandparenting will arrive. And the statistics bear that out. The state is not being heavy handed demanding children be produced. That's in keeping with freedom and liberty. But children statistically arrive nevertheless.

Marriage is a statistical gamble that states make by extending lures to entice the best formative environment for the most important people they are banking will come as a result of marriage: children. When men and women snuggle at night, the little scamps have a way of showing up on the scene. Or two childless potential parents long for those little arrivals as they age and none have come and are so inspired to adopt or foster as mother and father.

There is no mandate for children in marriage...but there is most definitely a calculated expectation of them. And so, the state incentivizes who it chooses to provide the best environment for them. The brand new social experiment requires the debate and weigh in of the goverened to see whether or not children should be lab rats on behalf of neo-marriage.

 

[Montrovant]

Hey look, more spam for Sil! You posted this same thing in another thread, are you unable to come up with arguments specific to the discussion at hand?

And really, what is with your obsession with the idea of wolves raising human children?

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, I posted most of it from another thread because it fit what was being discussed perfectly. I sometimes do that to save myself time. Don't you have a more substantive rebuttal to the points I made or is your ad hominem meant to shield the fact that you're speechless as to how to rebut my points?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You're putting a requirement on same sex couples that we don't put on any other parents;

you are simply raising the level of discrimination against same sex couples.

ROFLMNAO!

What color is the sky in your world?

Gender is not relevant only to sexual organs... The respective genders bring distinct traits relevant to the respective gender.

Reader, understand what the above cited contributor is implying... that the respective genders do not possess distinct but complimenting traits.

Once again proving, in incontestable terms, the disordered mind, advocating deceit, as truth; which is
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder, OKA: Delusion.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Hey look, more spam for Sil! You posted this same thing in another thread, are you unable to come up with arguments specific to the discussion at hand?

And really, what is with your obsession with the idea of wolves raising human children?

HEY! That is a wonderful concession.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It does not such thing.

Yet... IT does.

 

[Silhouette]

From last page...

...Nobody on earth is seeking to make laws to take children away from who is raising them now; not even from wolves, polygamists or incest parents. What is in question is enticing the BEST formative environment for children..

The state anticipates statistically that in any marriage children by birth, adoption, fostering or grandparenting will arrive. And the statistics bear that out. The state is not being heavy handed demanding children be produced. That's in keeping with freedom and liberty. But children statistically arrive nevertheless.

Marriage is a statistical gamble that states make by extending lures to entice the best formative environment for the most important people they are banking will come as a result of marriage: children. When men and women snuggle at night, the little scamps have a way of showing up on the scene. Or two childless potential parents long for those little arrivals as they age and none have come and are so inspired to adopt or foster as mother and father.

There is no mandate for children in marriage...but there is most definitely a calculated expectation of them. And so, the state incentivizes who it chooses to provide the best environment for them. The brand new social experiment requires the debate and weigh in of the goverened to see whether or not children should be lab rats on behalf of neo-marriage....

This is how we must resolve the question. Not 9 oligarchs in DC. Drastic changes to the fabric of society (marriage) must be approved by the governed. When the word itself is under attack, the many weigh in.

 

[Skylar]

You're putting a requirement on same sex couples that we don't put on any other parents;

you are simply raising the level of discrimination against same sex couples.

The Prince's Trust survey is simply describing that children need their gender as an adult role model or things go south for them mentally. Gay marriage cannot ever provide the best environment for 50% of the children involved. It's a structural thing. It has nothing to do with what you or I want or do. It simply is.

The Prince Trust Study never even mentions gay marriage, gay parents, or measures the effects of any type of parenting. In fact, every example of a child without a good same sex role model cited by the Prince Trust Study.......had a SINGLE parent.

Not two same sex parents.

You've simply hallucinated your entire argument.

 

[Skylar]

The reason a Child Can't Call 2 Women or 2 Men "Mom & Dad is because it would freak conservatives out too much

Just conservatives eh? Do you remember the election results of 2014? Middle voters made that happen. Might want to check your definition of "conservative" when it comes to this question..

Now the 2014 election was because of gay marriage?

Methinks you do stretch too much

And yet it was voted down twice in California.

Is California a blue or red state? I forget...

So long ago, I don't remember

How is gay marriage working out in California anyway?

Don't know how it's working out because it's still illegal there as it is in every state where a lower circuit Justice circumvented due process and didn't allow SCOTUS to overturn Windsor on their own...providing that's what they have in mind for April...

Says you, citing yourself. Back in reality, Windsor ever even mentions gay marriage bans. Let alone authorizes them. And the USSC preserved the ruling that overturned Prop 8. Just as the USSC has preserved every ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans.

And......denied stays for every state trying to defend them. Every single state. Every single time.

So much for your babble about 'illegal'. Once again, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

What wasn't long ago was the 2014 election. I'll search the internet but I don't recall an initiative proposed to Californians last Fall to remove the law from their Constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman only. Why wasn't that on their ballot rightwinger?

Because Prop 8 is already overturned. Gay marriage is already legal in California.

California is going to pass a proposition to make legal something that is already legal? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're putting a requirement on same sex couples that we don't put on any other parents;

you are simply raising the level of discrimination against same sex couples.

The Prince's Trust survey is simply describing that children need their gender as an adult role model or things go south for them mentally. Gay marriage cannot ever provide the best environment for 50% of the children involved. It's a structural thing. It has nothing to do with what you or I want or do. It simply is.

The Prince Trust Study never even mentions gay marriage, gay parents, or measures the effects of any type of parenting. In fact, every example of a child without a good same sex role model cited by the Prince Trust Study.......had a SINGLE parent.

Not two same sex parents.

You've simply hallucinated your entire argument.

His argument fails outright because marriage and parenting rights have never been based on some mythical 'ideal' child raising standard.

Same sex couples wanting marriage rights are under no obligation whatsoever to pass some sort of parenting 'test' to qualify for those rights any more than opposite sex couples are.

It's just one more absurd anti-gay argument made up for the same reason all the absurd anti-gay arguments have been made up...

...because there are no rational arguments against gay marriage rights.

 

[Skylar]

There is no mandate for children in marriage...but there is most definitely a calculated expectation of them. And so, the state incentivizes who it chooses to provide the best environment for them. The brand new social experiment requires the debate and weigh in of the goverened to see whether or not children should be lab rats on behalf of neo-marriage....

No one is denied marriage because they can't have children. No one. Why then would we deny marriage to gays for failing to meet a standard that applies to no one and doesn't exist?

There is no reason. As 44 of 46 federal courts to hear such arguments have demonstrated. And the USSC is about it.

This is how we must resolve the question. Not 9 oligarchs in DC. Drastic changes to the fabric of society (marriage) must be approved by the governed. When the word itself is under attack, the many weigh in.

Yeah, I don't think 'oligarch' means what you think it means.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, I posted most of it from another thread because it fit what was being discussed perfectly. I sometimes do that to save myself time. Don't you have a more substantive rebuttal to the points I made or is your ad hominem meant to shield the fact that you're speechless as to how to rebut my points?

Given that the points you've made are to make shit up about the Prince Trust study that it never says, what is there to rebut?

The Prince Trust study never mentions gay marriage. It never mentions same sex parents. It doesn't measure the effects of any kind of parenting. Worse for you, EVERY example of a child without a good same sex rolemodel that the Prince Trust Study cited...

.......had a single parent. Not a gay one.

You hallucinated your entire argument. And its highly unlikely that the USSC is going to be swayed by your hallucinations.

 

[Skylar]

You're putting a requirement on same sex couples that we don't put on any other parents;

you are simply raising the level of discrimination against same sex couples.

ROFLMNAO!

What color is the sky in your world?

Gender is not relevant only to sexual organs... The respective genders bring distinct traits relevant to the respective gender.

Reader, understand what the above cited contributor is implying... that the respective genders do not possess distinct but complimenting traits.

Once again proving, in incontestable terms, the disordered mind, advocating deceit, as truth; which is
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder, OKA: Delusion.

Your'e describing *******. Not marriage. They're not the same thing.

You don't need to have kids or be able to have them to be married. As the millions of infertile couples or childless couples being allowed to marry or remain married demonstrates. Proving incontrovertibly that there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

And destroying your entire argument.

 

[Skylar]

You're putting a requirement on same sex couples that we don't put on any other parents;

you are simply raising the level of discrimination against same sex couples.

The Prince's Trust survey is simply describing that children need their gender as an adult role model or things go south for them mentally. Gay marriage cannot ever provide the best environment for 50% of the children involved. It's a structural thing. It has nothing to do with what you or I want or do. It simply is.

The Prince Trust Study never even mentions gay marriage, gay parents, or measures the effects of any type of parenting. In fact, every example of a child without a good same sex role model cited by the Prince Trust Study.......had a SINGLE parent.

Not two same sex parents.

You've simply hallucinated your entire argument.

His argument fails outright because marriage and parenting rights have never been based on some mythical 'ideal' child raising standard.

Same sex couples wanting marriage rights are under no obligation whatsoever to pass some sort of parenting 'test' to qualify for those rights any more than opposite sex couples are.

It's just one more absurd anti-gay argument made up for the same reason all the absurd anti-gay arguments have been made up...

...because there are no rational arguments against gay marriage rights.

And an argument that the court hasn't show much interesting in supporting. Though they have made a special point to describe in elaborate detail all the immediate legal harm is being caused to children by NOT recognizing same sex marriage.

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....."

Describing the humiliation, the financial harm, the damage to their understanding of family, the denial of benefits, the denial of an intregal part of family security.

And when you ask Sil what benefits denying marriage to same sex parents provides for their children.....

........you get crickets. Even by Sil's reckoning, his proposals hurt children by the 10,000 of thousands severely. And benefit none of them.

So much for his lip service to 'advocating children'. The only child Sil cares about is the child he can use up.

 

[timslash]

Of course! And also, why people don't fight to legalize polygamy? Or maybe bestiality or child molesting? Because it will sound absurd, when people will ask a kid of dog and man - "Who's your mom?"
It's not only sound absurd and strange... It is strange and absurd!