CA's "Babies For Sale!" Are Private Surrogacy Contracts The Same As Child-Trafficking?

[Montrovant]

Marriage doesn't require children just like it doesn't require that two people love each other. But society knows that children need both a mother and a father. How do you reconcile this in "gay marriage"? Take your time..

Needs a mother and father for what? There is a difference between what is needed and what is preferable.

Clearly, society isn't as much in agreement as you seem to think. Gay marriage has plenty of support. Even if a majority doesn't support gay marriage (despite some polls which say the majority does) there is clearly a large portion of the population that is accepting of gay marriage. How do you reconcile this with your claim that "society knows that children need both a mother and a father"?

Care to answer any of my questions or respond to any points, or would you prefer to continue ignoring those things you don't have a good answer for?

 

[Skylar]

Marriage doesn't require children just like it doesn't require that two people love each other. But society knows that children need both a mother and a father. How do you reconcile this in "gay marriage"? Take your time..

Simple: gays and lesbians were already having kids. Denying them marriage didn't help their children....but hurt them. While denying the parents of these children marriage only hurts these children.

Making the denial of same sex marriage a proposal that only hurts kids and their parents. And helps no one. There's no upside to your obsession with stripping gays and lesbians of fundamental rights. It only causes harm.

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage doesn't require children just like it doesn't require that two people love each other. But society knows that children need both a mother and a father. How do you reconcile this in "gay marriage"? Take your time..

Needs a mother and father for what? There is a difference between what is needed and what is preferable....

Children aren't commodities you know, whose vital well-rounded upbringing hinges on the whims of adults' "preferences". You realize children are living, breathing, feeling, separate spiritual souls from yourself, yes? Because that's a vital starting point in this debate that I'm not sure everyone in your ilk is on the same page on...

Yes, and the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind, found that a mother and father BOTH are needed by children. Unless your new argument will be that psychology and emperical data-collecting is are 'dead fields' now that your new religion reigns supreme?

Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Excerpt from the OP:

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess....Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

So, there it is, confirmed. Children NEED both a mother and a father in their lives.

So now that that is a given we return to the topic:

1. Surrogacy to gay homes where

2. The lack of both parents as role models to kids and

3. that motherless daughters or fatherless sons are a proven tragedy...and..

4. Money changes hands.. =

5. The selling of children into tragic situations for money.

ergo my conclusion.

 

[EverCurious]

In related news, one of my lesbian friends announced that her wife and her are pregnant yesterday

She had moved to Europe to escape American discrimination and hatred some years back. Sad, but she's happy and that's all that matters in the end.

(Edit, yes I do troll on occasion.)

 

[mdk]

Despite the fact that The Prince's Trust doesn't support your obtuse and insipid claims you still peddle it as if it were gospel. Too funny.

 

[Jackson]

Do you think sperm donation is the same as child trafficking?

Perhaps, perhaps not. It's complicated law. I do know that if a child is to be transferred in custody it should have a guardian ad litem for every step of that process. Or perhaps you believe that any old adult who birthed a child is legally qualified to oversee its interest every step of the way...like no woman strapped for cash would ever consider selling her infant to creepy customers when she already has six of her own..? Just let the "booming industry" self-regulate will you?...The New York Times...not me.. labelled what's going on in California "an industry"...

The customers aren't creepy. The woman having the baby is. Lots of couples can't have children. Many go overseas to adopt. That's how desperate they are.

I disagree. I think two adult men conspiring to deprive a child of a mother is creepy. And any woman agreeing to place a child in that detrimental situation is equally guilty of being creepy. Money is changing hands during all this and therefore, a child is being trafficked.

Most people agree that if a child is sold into a situation where s/he can be predicted to suffer in any measureable way (a motherless child is a tragedy. A fatherless child is a tragedy), then the transaction is the definition of child-trafficking.

Obviously, the child was not wanted. This is the better alternative to abortion. A couple will be getting the child they wanted so desperately. Adoptions cost as well.

 

[Skylar]

Children aren't commodities you know, whose vital well-rounded upbringing hinges on the whims of adults' "preferences". You realize children are living, breathing, feeling, separate spiritual souls from yourself, yes? Because that's a vital starting point in this debate that I'm not sure everyone in your ilk is on the same page on...

And how does denying marriage to the same sex parents of these children help them in any way?

........

......

....

...

..

.

You've got nothing, huh? And your argument breaks again.

Yes, and the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind, found that a mother and father BOTH are needed by children. Unless your new argument will be that psychology and emperical data-collecting is are 'dead fields' now that your new religion reigns supreme?

Obvious nonsense. The Prince Trust study doesn't measure the effects of same sex households, gay marriage, gays or any of the inane nonsense you're babbling about. You're just making this up as you go along.

At this point, we've already the Prince Trust study. You know you're lying. We know you're lying. No one is buying your bullshit. So for whose benefit are you containing to mispresesent a study that doesn't measure anything you claim it does?

And of course how does denying same sex parents the right to marry help with anything you've imagined? It doesn't. Denying same sex parents marriage doesn't mean their children magically have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that these children will never have married parents.

Which helps no one and harms tens of thousands of children. We're not doing that. You lost and you should have lost.

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess....Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

So, there it is, confirmed. Children NEED both a mother and a father in their lives.
[/quote]

Nope. Lets see.....nothing you've cited says 'mother' or 'father'. But instead good male or female role models. You assume that can only be a parent. And your assumptions are meaningless. It could be a father. Or an uncle. Or a grandfather. Or a family friend, coach, pastor, mentor, work colleague, teacher, counselor, etc.

And you ignore it all, pretending it can only be a father. Despite the fact that your own source never even mentions fathers. But good male role models.

You can pretend all you like. No one is pretending with you.

So now that that is a given we return to the topic:

1. Surrogacy to gay homes where

2. The lack of both parents as role models to kids and

3. that motherless daughters or fatherless sons are a proven tragedy...and..

4. Money changes hands.. =

5. The selling of children into tragic situations for money.

ergo my conclusion.

Nope. Same problem as always: none of your imaginary criteria have a thing to do with the law or child trafficking. Surrogacy isn't child trafficking, instantly killing your entire batshit conspiracy. You're literally offering us your imagination as the law.

Ergo....meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage doesn't require children just like it doesn't require that two people love each other. But society knows that children need both a mother and a father. How do you reconcile this in "gay marriage"? Take your time..

Reconcile what?

Two completely unrelated terms that you obsess over?

Marriage doesn't require children.
People who get married don't always have children.
People who have children don't always get married.

You want to take children away from their homosexual parents.
You clearly oppose their children having married parents.
Next you will propose the State dragging their children away from their parents- and then forcible sterilization of lesbians.

So deep is your hatred of homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage doesn't require children just like it doesn't require that two people love each other. But society knows that children need both a mother and a father. How do you reconcile this in "gay marriage"? Take your time..

Needs a mother and father for what? There is a difference between what is needed and what is preferable....

Children aren't commodities you know, whose vital well-rounded upbringing hinges on the whims of adults' "preferences". You realize children are living, breathing, feeling, separate spiritual souls from yourself, yes? Because that's a vital starting point in this debate that I'm not sure everyone in your ilk is on the same page on...

Yes, and the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind, found that a mother and father BOTH are needed by children. Unless your new argument will be that psychology and emperical data-collecting is are 'dead fields' now that your new religion reigns supreme?

Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Excerpt from the OP:

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess....Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

So, there it is, confirmed. Children NEED both a mother and a father in their lives.

So now that that is a given we return to the topic:

1. Surrogacy to gay homes where

2. The lack of both parents as role models to kids and

3. that motherless daughters or fatherless sons are a proven tragedy...and..

4. Money changes hands.. =

5. The selling of children into tragic situations for money.

ergo my conclusion.

Ergo your 'conclusion' is based both upon your anti-gay bigotry- and is based upon your intense ignorance and lack of concern for the welfare of children who are actually being trafficked.

How do we know this?

Where is there a single thread started by you regarding the millions of children who are trafficked for sex in the world each year?

Not one.

 

[Montrovant]

Marriage doesn't require children just like it doesn't require that two people love each other. But society knows that children need both a mother and a father. How do you reconcile this in "gay marriage"? Take your time..

Needs a mother and father for what? There is a difference between what is needed and what is preferable....

Children aren't commodities you know, whose vital well-rounded upbringing hinges on the whims of adults' "preferences". You realize children are living, breathing, feeling, separate spiritual souls from yourself, yes? Because that's a vital starting point in this debate that I'm not sure everyone in your ilk is on the same page on...

Yes, and the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind, found that a mother and father BOTH are needed by children. Unless your new argument will be that psychology and emperical data-collecting is are 'dead fields' now that your new religion reigns supreme?

Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Excerpt from the OP:

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess....Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

So, there it is, confirmed. Children NEED both a mother and a father in their lives.

So now that that is a given we return to the topic:

1. Surrogacy to gay homes where

2. The lack of both parents as role models to kids and

3. that motherless daughters or fatherless sons are a proven tragedy...and..

4. Money changes hands.. =

5. The selling of children into tragic situations for money.

ergo my conclusion.

The same old lies and bullshit regurgitated.

Do you have an issue with memory? It's almost like arguing with Dory from Finding Nemo.

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage doesn't require children just like it doesn't require that two people love each other. But society knows that children need both a mother and a father. How do you reconcile this in "gay marriage"? Take your time..

Needs a mother and father for what? There is a difference between what is needed and what is preferable....

Children aren't commodities you know, whose vital well-rounded upbringing hinges on the whims of adults' "preferences". You realize children are living, breathing, feeling, separate spiritual souls from yourself, yes? Because that's a vital starting point in this debate that I'm not sure everyone in your ilk is on the same page on...

Yes, and the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind, found that a mother and father BOTH are needed by children. Unless your new argument will be that psychology and emperical data-collecting is are 'dead fields' now that your new religion reigns supreme?

Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Excerpt from the OP:

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess....Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

So, there it is, confirmed. Children NEED both a mother and a father in their lives.

So now that that is a given we return to the topic:

1. Surrogacy to gay homes where

2. The lack of both parents as role models to kids and

3. that motherless daughters or fatherless sons are a proven tragedy...and..

4. Money changes hands.. =

5. The selling of children into tragic situations for money.

ergo my conclusion.

I'll add: Gays can never have children together. There is always a missing parent. Any child in a gay home, 100% of the time was conceived and born out of wedlock. Preventing that dire situation was why marriage was invented in the first place. So, "Gay marriage" = "Anti-marriage".

Marriage doesn't require children just like it doesn't require that two people love each other. But society knows that children need both a mother and a father. How do you reconcile this in "gay marriage"? Take your time..

Simple: gays and lesbians were already having kids. Denying them marriage didn't help their children....but hurt them. While denying the parents of these children marriage only hurts these children.

Making the denial of same sex marriage a proposal that only hurts kids and their parents. And helps no one. There's no upside to your obsession with stripping gays and lesbians of fundamental rights. It only causes harm.

Gay men don't have sex with women. Gay women don't have sex with men. And if they do, they never stay together and aren't married. So, every child in a gay home, was conceived out of wedlock. Marriage was created to not have kids created out of wedlock. Gay marriage is the antithesis of the intent of why marriage was invented by mankind in first place. Providing a mother and father to children in a home was the reason marriage started, why it continued and what it means to people today. That you got your perversion, your antithesis of it shoved down these people's throats in no way changes their feelings of children being born out of wedlock ON PURPOSE or the money that changes hands in order to do so. Gay marriage is an abomination, an affront to children everywhere. The icing on the cake is that "gayness" is a behavioral affect that finds its cult members doing lewd sex acts in "Pride" in front of kids down parades on mainstreet across the US on a regular/ongoing basis. That's a double-blow to children.

The five Justices that made this happen to our nation's children should be jailed, not just impeached.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The five Justices that made this happen to our nation's children should be jailed, not just impeached.

Marriage is not about children, and never has been. Just a byproduct, usually.

 

[Montrovant]

Marriage doesn't require children just like it doesn't require that two people love each other. But society knows that children need both a mother and a father. How do you reconcile this in "gay marriage"? Take your time..

Needs a mother and father for what? There is a difference between what is needed and what is preferable....

Children aren't commodities you know, whose vital well-rounded upbringing hinges on the whims of adults' "preferences". You realize children are living, breathing, feeling, separate spiritual souls from yourself, yes? Because that's a vital starting point in this debate that I'm not sure everyone in your ilk is on the same page on...

Yes, and the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind, found that a mother and father BOTH are needed by children. Unless your new argument will be that psychology and emperical data-collecting is are 'dead fields' now that your new religion reigns supreme?

Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Excerpt from the OP:

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess....Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

So, there it is, confirmed. Children NEED both a mother and a father in their lives.

So now that that is a given we return to the topic:

1. Surrogacy to gay homes where

2. The lack of both parents as role models to kids and

3. that motherless daughters or fatherless sons are a proven tragedy...and..

4. Money changes hands.. =

5. The selling of children into tragic situations for money.

ergo my conclusion.

I'll add: Gays can never have children together. There is always a missing parent. Any child in a gay home, 100% of the time was conceived and born out of wedlock. Preventing that dire situation was why marriage was invented in the first place. So, "Gay marriage" = "Anti-marriage".

Marriage doesn't require children just like it doesn't require that two people love each other. But society knows that children need both a mother and a father. How do you reconcile this in "gay marriage"? Take your time..

Simple: gays and lesbians were already having kids. Denying them marriage didn't help their children....but hurt them. While denying the parents of these children marriage only hurts these children.

Making the denial of same sex marriage a proposal that only hurts kids and their parents. And helps no one. There's no upside to your obsession with stripping gays and lesbians of fundamental rights. It only causes harm.

Gay men don't have sex with women. Gay women don't have sex with men. And if they do, they never stay together and aren't married. So, every child in a gay home, was conceived out of wedlock. Marriage was created to not have kids created out of wedlock. Gay marriage is the antithesis of the intent of why marriage was invented by mankind in first place. Providing a mother and father to children in a home was the reason marriage started, why it continued and what it means to people today. That you got your perversion, your antithesis of it shoved down these people's throats in no way changes their feelings of children being born out of wedlock ON PURPOSE or the money that changes hands in order to do so. Gay marriage is an abomination, an affront to children everywhere. The icing on the cake is that "gayness" is a behavioral affect that finds its cult members doing lewd sex acts in "Pride" in front of kids down parades on mainstreet across the US on a regular/ongoing basis. That's a double-blow to children.

The five Justices that made this happen to our nation's children should be jailed, not just impeached.

Have you never heard of people who lived lives as straight but eventually came out as gay? Some of those people got married and had children in those marriages. If they ended up with custody of those children after coming out, you could have children born in wedlock being raised by gay couples.

I am pretty confident that marriage was not invented to prevent gays from having children.

You are funny, copying and pasting replies which you made previously as though they somehow make more sense. The Prince's Trust Youth Index did not find anything you say it did. It said nothing about gays or gay parents, it did not find that children needed both parents, in fact it didn't focus on parents at all. The one you constantly link to discusses same gender role models, but doesn't specify who those role models might be. Which you've been told and shown, many times. The Prince's Trust, in a later survey, actually mentions that the organization provides role models to the youth they work with, proving that when the Index talks about role models it does not automatically mean parents. Which you've been told and shown. You cannot help but lie about the Index for some reason.

Again, there is a difference between what is needed and what is preferable. I realize you have a very hard time understanding the definitions of words, so I'll try to reword it for you. Having two parents may be better for children in general, but children can survive and even thrive with only one parent, or with two same gender parents. There have been various polls and studies, including the Prince's Trust, which can confirm this (not every child in the Prince's Trust which lacked a positive same gender role model dealt with the problems listed). 'Unless your new argument will be that psychology and emperical (sic) data-collecting is are (sic) 'dead fields'' now that same sex marriage is the law of the land.

Marriage was created to not have kids outside of marriage? That sounds like a pretty silly rationale.

Now you're calling for USSC justices to be jailed? Deeper and deeper......

 

[Silhouette]

Have you never heard of people who lived lives as straight but eventually came out as gay? Some of those people got married and had children in those marriages. If they ended up with custody of those children after coming out, you could have children born in wedlock being raised by gay couples...

Yes. I've also heard of people who were married coming out as serial killers, rapists, drug addicts, alcoholics etc. But that doesn't mean their illness instantly qualifies them as "good parents". The rule of keeping kids away from out of wedlock by creating marriage isn't a foolproof guarantee that each and every single marriage will work. It is instead an earnest attempt at the brass ring for the sake of children. If we have no standard to protect them having a steady mother and father in their home, then we have chaos, and their safety will be at risk.

You're "logic" seems to be "since there are exceptions to the rule, the rule must be discarded and the hell with what children need". My logic is "the rule will never 100% be achieved, but we will strive to reach that number always for the sake of children."

 

[Skylar]

Gay men don't have sex with women. Gay women don't have sex with men. And if they do, they never stay together and aren't married. So, every child in a gay home, was conceived out of wedlock.

And how does denying marriage to the same sex parents of these children .....help these kids in any way? The harm it causes them is well documented.

What's the benefit? There is none. Your proposal only hurts children. Which is one of the many reasons you lost.

Providing a mother and father to children in a home was the reason marriage started, why it continued and what it means to people today.

Does denying same sex parents marriage 'provide a mother and father in the home'?

Nope!

It merely guarantees that children of same sex parents can never have married parents. Which hurts those children while helping no one. Your proposal provides zero benefit and causes significant, predictable harm.

Which is why we rejected it.

The five Justices that made this happen to our nation's children should be jailed, not just impeached.

Neither is happening. And didn't you predict that they *would* be impeached when republicans took control of the senate? Once again, your useless predictions are demonstrated to be worse than guessing.

 

[Skylar]

Have you never heard of people who lived lives as straight but eventually came out as gay? Some of those people got married and had children in those marriages. If they ended up with custody of those children after coming out, you could have children born in wedlock being raised by gay couples...

Yes. I've also heard of people who were married coming out as serial killers, rapists, drug addicts, alcoholics etc. But that doesn't mean their illness instantly qualifies them as "good parents".

Being gay isn't equivalent to being a serial killer, rapist or drug addict. Your argument is getting more shrilly irrational, doubling down on obtuse false equivalency fallacies.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need such fallacies.

The rule of keeping kids away from out of wedlock by creating marriage isn't a foolproof guarantee that each and every single marriage will work.

And when the kids are already born out of wedlock, we actually encourage their parents to marry. Explicitly the opposite of what you insist we should do. Nixing your latest round of pseudo-legal batshit.

It is instead an earnest attempt at the brass ring for the sake of children. If we have no standard to protect them having a steady mother and father in their home, then we have chaos, and their safety will be at risk.

And how does denying same sex parents marriage help their children? You keep babbling about the 'sake of the children'. But when asked how your proposal helps them, you avoid the question like it were on fire. Hell, you've openly said that these children aren't your concern. And openly ignored the significant harm your proposals caused them.

So much for you 'for the sake of the children' argument. The only child you care about is one you can use to hurt gay people. All the others are beneath your consideration. Including the kids of same sex couples, whom you'll gladly hurt if you can also hurt their parents.

No thank you. Both you and your proposals are rejected.

 

[mdk]

Sil is still peddling The Prince's Trust Study as proof of her claptrap?!

 

[Skylar]

Sil is still peddling The Prince's Trust Study as proof of her claptrap?!

Yeah, its pointless. Sil knows she's full of shit. As demonstrated by her stark refusal to discuss any of her lies about the study. Any time you ask her where the study says that a positive same sex role model has to be a parent.....she'll omit the question from any reply and refuse to discuss it.

Even Sil has admitted that the Prince Trust Study doesn't measure the effects of any kind of parenting. Making her lies moot.

We know it. Anyone reading the thread learns of it. And Sil knows it.

What we're seeing is the rhetorical equivalent of self soothing. With the audience for Sil's lies.....being Sil. She's trying to convince herself far more than any of us.

 

[mdk]

Sil, the GOP controls the House and the Senate. Why haven't they brought up impeachment charges against these Justices? I am sure it will happen any day now...

lol

 

[mdk]

Sil is still peddling The Prince's Trust Study as proof of her claptrap?!

Yeah, its pointless. Sil knows she's full of shit. As demonstrated by her stark refusal to discuss any of her lies about the study. Any time you ask her where the study says that a positive same sex role model has to be a parent.....she'll omit the question from any reply and refuse to discuss it.

Even Sil has admitted that the Prince Trust Study doesn't measure the effects of any kind of parenting. Making her lies moot.

We know it. Anyone reading the thread learns of it. And Sil knows it.

What we're seeing is the rhetorical equivalent of self soothing. With the audience for Sil's lies.....being Sil. She's trying to convince herself far more than any of us.

Yeah, it is pretty much why I stopped participating her threads. She isn't interested in discussion, only repeating the same dumb shit over and over in a lame attempt to console herself. While it was fun before the court ruling now it is just sad and pathetic to behold. Not even her rabidly anti-gay cronies are coming to defend the nonsense that is the premise of this thread. lol