Idea For New Constitutional Amendment: "The Child Consideration Amendment"

[Syriusly]

Fallicy: Disagreeing with homosexuals is not "attacking" them...though if you are part of the cult, questioning your dogma might feel like an attack to a brittle person incapable of dealing with give and take.

Lying about homosexuals in order to make people mistrust them is an attack.

And that is what you do Silhouette.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I think it is attacking, hate and bigotry when it is done to Christians or done by Christians



You apparently are okay with Silhouette starting a thread a day for the express purpose of attacking homosexuals- I am not.

So let's set the record straight because that's the best therapy I can offer. Having different viewpoints is not "hate" and expressing those viewpoints is not "attacking". And there is no such indictment you can direct toward others that can't as easily be directed toward you which is why I posted one of your threads.

Having different viewpoints does not necessarily mean hate- but some viewpoints are indeed indicative of 'hate'.

And feel free to compare my posting to Silhouettes- I welcome such a comparison.

Let me start off- I indict Silhouette for willfully and knowingly lying about a research paper.

Here is the link:
http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

This is a research paper that I first read because Silhouette provided a link to it- and even then she lied about the paper.
How does Silhouette lie about this paper?

• Silhouette regularly refers to this paper as the product of Mayo Clinic- as in "According to the Mayo Clinic"- but it is clear from the paper, that this was a paper written by Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall, and not done in conjunction with the Mayo Clinic, but merely published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings- a professional journal. It is a lie, because I have repeatedly pointed this out- but Silhouette continues to attach the cache of the Mayo Clinic to this paper
• Much more importantly- Silhouette explicitly lies about what the paper says- she claims the paper shows that homosexuals are far more likely to molest children than heterosexuals- and then posts a quote- leaving out the last line which says just the opposite. Below is the quote- Silhouette always quotes the part in red- and always excludes the quote in blue.

The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20
times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men (using a prevalence rate of adult homosexuality
of 2%-4%).5,7,10,19,29,30
This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children,

There is my indictment of Silhouette- you want to show an example of me repeating the same lie for the last 2 years, despite being told repeatedly by multiple posters that the actual words of the citation say just the opposite of what I said the citation says- well I will stand indicted then.

Go for it.

You missed the point entirely. Well, I tried, but some people need misery in their lives. I'm going to continue to enjoy this forum, live, laugh, love, which is what a sense of humility allows me to do. I have a feeling Silhouette is laughing too at how easily she gets your goat. She will continue to write threads prolifically posing new and innovative viewpoints and you will continue to rehearse your rosary of bitterness in reaction. I personally find it hilarious, but I will remember that I did invite you to an elevated vantage point so I won't feel guilty when you stay right where you are.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I think it is attacking, hate and bigotry when it is done to Christians or done by Christians



You apparently are okay with Silhouette starting a thread a day for the express purpose of attacking homosexuals- I am not.

And lastly, learn to laugh at yourself. It's easy to tell when somebody doesn't take themselves with a grain of salt and can't find ways to see the humor in these discussions from an elevated point of view. Your new Sensei in this quest is Moonglow who is a black belt in aloof jocularity. I love exchanging witty badinage with him and his posts have certainly helped me to laugh at it all.

I hope this helps. I'm not attacking you, just trying to help you see all this from another perspective.

LOL- I laugh at myself rather regularly.

I sure make mistakes. I have laughed enough times when folks have caught my errors here at USMB.

But I find no humor in Silhouette's attempts to villify homosexuals. I find nothing but gallows humor in the racism of Stevie the racist. Really depends on whom I am responding to- and what the topic is.

"Stevie the racist" is probably also having a blast. You don't seem to get that he will call Obama the Chimp in Chief just to see people like you and Skylar tie yourself in knots over it. I do that too. This forum is sport, and the winner is the one that gets the other to lose it. I'm inviting you to join the fun, but it's completely up to you.

 

[Syriusly]

I think it is attacking, hate and bigotry when it is done to Christians or done by Christians



You apparently are okay with Silhouette starting a thread a day for the express purpose of attacking homosexuals- I am not.

So let's set the record straight because that's the best therapy I can offer. Having different viewpoints is not "hate" and expressing those viewpoints is not "attacking". And there is no such indictment you can direct toward others that can't as easily be directed toward you which is why I posted one of your threads.

Having different viewpoints does not necessarily mean hate- but some viewpoints are indeed indicative of 'hate'.

And feel free to compare my posting to Silhouettes- I welcome such a comparison.

Let me start off- I indict Silhouette for willfully and knowingly lying about a research paper.

Here is the link:
http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

This is a research paper that I first read because Silhouette provided a link to it- and even then she lied about the paper.
How does Silhouette lie about this paper?

• Silhouette regularly refers to this paper as the product of Mayo Clinic- as in "According to the Mayo Clinic"- but it is clear from the paper, that this was a paper written by Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall, and not done in conjunction with the Mayo Clinic, but merely published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings- a professional journal. It is a lie, because I have repeatedly pointed this out- but Silhouette continues to attach the cache of the Mayo Clinic to this paper
• Much more importantly- Silhouette explicitly lies about what the paper says- she claims the paper shows that homosexuals are far more likely to molest children than heterosexuals- and then posts a quote- leaving out the last line which says just the opposite. Below is the quote- Silhouette always quotes the part in red- and always excludes the quote in blue.

The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20
times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men (using a prevalence rate of adult homosexuality
of 2%-4%).5,7,10,19,29,30
This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children,

There is my indictment of Silhouette- you want to show an example of me repeating the same lie for the last 2 years, despite being told repeatedly by multiple posters that the actual words of the citation say just the opposite of what I said the citation says- well I will stand indicted then.

Go for it.

You missed the point entirely. Well, I tried, but some people need misery in their lives. I'm going to continue to enjoy this forum, live, laugh, love, which is what a sense of humility allows me to do. I have a feeling Silhouette is laughing too at how easily she gets your goat. She will continue to write threads prolifically posing new and innovative viewpoints and you will continue to rehearse your rosary of bitterness in reaction. I personally find it hilarious, but I will remember that I did invite you to an elevated vantage point so I won't feel guilty when you stay right where you are.

LOL- feel anyway you want. I love my life and my life is not filled with hate towards anyone.

I have a feeling that Silhouette is actually suffering from some mental issue- but no reason to treat her differently because of that.

You find Silhouette's threads as 'new and innovative viewpoints'- I find them just variations on her theme of promoting her anti-homosexual meme- except her odd environmental ones.

 

[Skylar]

I think it is attacking, hate and bigotry when it is done to Christians or done by Christians



You apparently are okay with Silhouette starting a thread a day for the express purpose of attacking homosexuals- I am not.

And lastly, learn to laugh at yourself. It's easy to tell when somebody doesn't take themselves with a grain of salt and can't find ways to see the humor in these discussions from an elevated point of view. Your new Sensei in this quest is Moonglow who is a black belt in aloof jocularity. I love exchanging witty badinage with him and his posts have certainly helped me to laugh at it all.

I hope this helps. I'm not attacking you, just trying to help you see all this from another perspective.

LOL- I laugh at myself rather regularly.

I sure make mistakes. I have laughed enough times when folks have caught my errors here at USMB.

But I find no humor in Silhouette's attempts to villify homosexuals. I find nothing but gallows humor in the racism of Stevie the racist. Really depends on whom I am responding to- and what the topic is.

"Stevie the racist" is probably also having a blast. You don't seem to get that he will call Obama the Chimp in Chief just to see people like you and Skylar tie yourself in knots over it. I do that too. This forum is sport, and the winner is the one that gets the other to lose it. I'm inviting you to join the fun, but it's completely up to you.

Smiling....have fun. That only means we're both enjoying it.

 

[Syriusly]

I think it is attacking, hate and bigotry when it is done to Christians or done by Christians



You apparently are okay with Silhouette starting a thread a day for the express purpose of attacking homosexuals- I am not.

And lastly, learn to laugh at yourself. It's easy to tell when somebody doesn't take themselves with a grain of salt and can't find ways to see the humor in these discussions from an elevated point of view. Your new Sensei in this quest is Moonglow who is a black belt in aloof jocularity. I love exchanging witty badinage with him and his posts have certainly helped me to laugh at it all.

I hope this helps. I'm not attacking you, just trying to help you see all this from another perspective.

LOL- I laugh at myself rather regularly.

I sure make mistakes. I have laughed enough times when folks have caught my errors here at USMB.

But I find no humor in Silhouette's attempts to villify homosexuals. I find nothing but gallows humor in the racism of Stevie the racist. Really depends on whom I am responding to- and what the topic is.

"Stevie the racist" is probably also having a blast. You don't seem to get that he will call Obama the Chimp in Chief just to see people like you and Skylar tie yourself in knots over it. I do that too. This forum is sport, and the winner is the one that gets the other to lose it. I'm inviting you to join the fun, but it's completely up to you.

I have fun every day. You seem to think that you have the keys on how to enjoy USMB- I think it is pretty obvious that I am enjoying myself here.

Stevie the racist in particular amuses me- I love pointing out how sympatico he and Trump are.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I think it is attacking, hate and bigotry when it is done to Christians or done by Christians



You apparently are okay with Silhouette starting a thread a day for the express purpose of attacking homosexuals- I am not.

So let's set the record straight because that's the best therapy I can offer. Having different viewpoints is not "hate" and expressing those viewpoints is not "attacking". And there is no such indictment you can direct toward others that can't as easily be directed toward you which is why I posted one of your threads.

Having different viewpoints does not necessarily mean hate- but some viewpoints are indeed indicative of 'hate'.

And feel free to compare my posting to Silhouettes- I welcome such a comparison.

Let me start off- I indict Silhouette for willfully and knowingly lying about a research paper.

Here is the link:
http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

This is a research paper that I first read because Silhouette provided a link to it- and even then she lied about the paper.
How does Silhouette lie about this paper?

• Silhouette regularly refers to this paper as the product of Mayo Clinic- as in "According to the Mayo Clinic"- but it is clear from the paper, that this was a paper written by Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall, and not done in conjunction with the Mayo Clinic, but merely published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings- a professional journal. It is a lie, because I have repeatedly pointed this out- but Silhouette continues to attach the cache of the Mayo Clinic to this paper
• Much more importantly- Silhouette explicitly lies about what the paper says- she claims the paper shows that homosexuals are far more likely to molest children than heterosexuals- and then posts a quote- leaving out the last line which says just the opposite. Below is the quote- Silhouette always quotes the part in red- and always excludes the quote in blue.

The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20
times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men (using a prevalence rate of adult homosexuality
of 2%-4%).5,7,10,19,29,30
This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children,

There is my indictment of Silhouette- you want to show an example of me repeating the same lie for the last 2 years, despite being told repeatedly by multiple posters that the actual words of the citation say just the opposite of what I said the citation says- well I will stand indicted then.

Go for it.

You missed the point entirely. Well, I tried, but some people need misery in their lives. I'm going to continue to enjoy this forum, live, laugh, love, which is what a sense of humility allows me to do. I have a feeling Silhouette is laughing too at how easily she gets your goat. She will continue to write threads prolifically posing new and innovative viewpoints and you will continue to rehearse your rosary of bitterness in reaction. I personally find it hilarious, but I will remember that I did invite you to an elevated vantage point so I won't feel guilty when you stay right where you are.

LOL- feel anyway you want. I love my life and my life is not filled with hate towards anyone.

I have a feeling that Silhouette is actually suffering from some mental issue- but no reason to treat her differently because of that.

You find Silhouette's threads as 'new and innovative viewpoints'- I find them just variations on her theme of promoting her anti-homosexual meme- except her odd environmental ones.

Funny. I see your posts as variations on the same theme too. And I don't hate anyone either, except perhaps Muslim terrorists killing people everyday. My gay friends have an awesome sense of humor, very irreverent, and they are truly travelling light. Most of all, they laugh at angry Leftists just like I do....no wonder we're such great friends.

And they're getting married next week and we're going to be at the wedding cheering them on. I love my life and I love my gay friends. Life is too short to walk around angry and bitter all the time. It's because of my real life that my cyber life is just so hilarious.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I think it is attacking, hate and bigotry when it is done to Christians or done by Christians



You apparently are okay with Silhouette starting a thread a day for the express purpose of attacking homosexuals- I am not.

And lastly, learn to laugh at yourself. It's easy to tell when somebody doesn't take themselves with a grain of salt and can't find ways to see the humor in these discussions from an elevated point of view. Your new Sensei in this quest is Moonglow who is a black belt in aloof jocularity. I love exchanging witty badinage with him and his posts have certainly helped me to laugh at it all.

I hope this helps. I'm not attacking you, just trying to help you see all this from another perspective.

LOL- I laugh at myself rather regularly.

I sure make mistakes. I have laughed enough times when folks have caught my errors here at USMB.

But I find no humor in Silhouette's attempts to villify homosexuals. I find nothing but gallows humor in the racism of Stevie the racist. Really depends on whom I am responding to- and what the topic is.

"Stevie the racist" is probably also having a blast. You don't seem to get that he will call Obama the Chimp in Chief just to see people like you and Skylar tie yourself in knots over it. I do that too. This forum is sport, and the winner is the one that gets the other to lose it. I'm inviting you to join the fun, but it's completely up to you.

Smiling....have fun. That only means we're both enjoying it.

Cool! You get it!

 

[Syriusly]

I think it is attacking, hate and bigotry when it is done to Christians or done by Christians



You apparently are okay with Silhouette starting a thread a day for the express purpose of attacking homosexuals- I am not.

So let's set the record straight because that's the best therapy I can offer. Having different viewpoints is not "hate" and expressing those viewpoints is not "attacking". And there is no such indictment you can direct toward others that can't as easily be directed toward you which is why I posted one of your threads.

Having different viewpoints does not necessarily mean hate- but some viewpoints are indeed indicative of 'hate'.

And feel free to compare my posting to Silhouettes- I welcome such a comparison.

Let me start off- I indict Silhouette for willfully and knowingly lying about a research paper.

Here is the link:
http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

This is a research paper that I first read because Silhouette provided a link to it- and even then she lied about the paper.
How does Silhouette lie about this paper?

• Silhouette regularly refers to this paper as the product of Mayo Clinic- as in "According to the Mayo Clinic"- but it is clear from the paper, that this was a paper written by Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall, and not done in conjunction with the Mayo Clinic, but merely published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings- a professional journal. It is a lie, because I have repeatedly pointed this out- but Silhouette continues to attach the cache of the Mayo Clinic to this paper
• Much more importantly- Silhouette explicitly lies about what the paper says- she claims the paper shows that homosexuals are far more likely to molest children than heterosexuals- and then posts a quote- leaving out the last line which says just the opposite. Below is the quote- Silhouette always quotes the part in red- and always excludes the quote in blue.

The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20
times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men (using a prevalence rate of adult homosexuality
of 2%-4%).5,7,10,19,29,30
This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children,

There is my indictment of Silhouette- you want to show an example of me repeating the same lie for the last 2 years, despite being told repeatedly by multiple posters that the actual words of the citation say just the opposite of what I said the citation says- well I will stand indicted then.

Go for it.

You missed the point entirely. Well, I tried, but some people need misery in their lives. I'm going to continue to enjoy this forum, live, laugh, love, which is what a sense of humility allows me to do. I have a feeling Silhouette is laughing too at how easily she gets your goat. She will continue to write threads prolifically posing new and innovative viewpoints and you will continue to rehearse your rosary of bitterness in reaction. I personally find it hilarious, but I will remember that I did invite you to an elevated vantage point so I won't feel guilty when you stay right where you are.

LOL- feel anyway you want. I love my life and my life is not filled with hate towards anyone.

I have a feeling that Silhouette is actually suffering from some mental issue- but no reason to treat her differently because of that.

You find Silhouette's threads as 'new and innovative viewpoints'- I find them just variations on her theme of promoting her anti-homosexual meme- except her odd environmental ones.

Funny. I see your posts as variations on the same theme too. And I don't hate anyone either, except perhaps Muslim terrorists killing people everyday. My gay friends have an awesome sense of humor, very irreverent, and they are truly travelling light. Most of all, they laugh at angry Leftists just like I do....no wonder we're such great friends.

And they're getting married next week and we're going to be at the wedding cheering them on. I love my life and I love my gay friends. Life is too short to walk around angry and bitter all the time. It's because of my real life that my cyber life is just so hilarious.

Well see- on that we are mostly in agreement. Of course mostly my gay friends laugh at angry Conservatives AND Liberals like I do.

Just so many more of those angry Conservatives.

 

[Silhouette]

Well see- on that we are mostly in agreement. Of course mostly my gay friends laugh at angry Conservatives AND Liberals like I do.

Just so many more of those angry Conservatives.

So you laugh at people who are interested in protecting children? Why do you hate children?

 

[Silhouette]

LOL- feel anyway you want. I love my life and my life is not filled with hate towards anyone.

I have a feeling that Silhouette is actually suffering from some mental issue- but no reason to treat her differently because of that.

You find Silhouette's threads as 'new and innovative viewpoints'- I find them just variations on her theme of promoting her anti-homosexual meme- except her odd environmental ones.

I suppose watching someone our family cared about run around doing promiscious gay sex from untreated mental wounds as a child from his being molested...getting HIV thereby....infecting a bunch of other like-affected young men ....and then learning he died of AIDS in his early 30s...with a life so full of promise otherwise...did affect me. That's fair to say. And what do you know? I've already said that. Dozens of times.

But if anyone acts to not protect children, if they try to blockade something that would protect a child's needs from adult wants that could harm them....that person is mentally ill. Only the sickest of the most depraved society would stand in the way of things that might protect children; while merely putting out the immediate whims of an adult on the legal scales to get that done. Only a sick person would be in favor of an adult's jollies at the expense of a child's wellbeing.

 

[Syriusly]

Well see- on that we are mostly in agreement. Of course mostly my gay friends laugh at angry Conservatives AND Liberals like I do.

Just so many more of those angry Conservatives.

So you laugh at people who are interested in protecting children? Why do you hate children?

I said I laugh at angry Conservatives and Liberals. I never said anything about laughing at people who are interested in protecting children.

I have a child- I work with children- and I want the children of gay parents to be able to have married parents- because children deserve married parents.

You are the one who wants to deny those children married parents- meaning you wish to cause these children- as Judge Kennedy said so succinctly "There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children,"

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- feel anyway you want. I love my life and my life is not filled with hate towards anyone.

I have a feeling that Silhouette is actually suffering from some mental issue- but no reason to treat her differently because of that.

You find Silhouette's threads as 'new and innovative viewpoints'- I find them just variations on her theme of promoting her anti-homosexual meme- except her odd environmental ones.

I suppose watching someone our family cared about run around doing promiscious gay sex from untreated mental wounds as a child from his being molested...getting HIV thereby....infecting a bunch of other like-affected young men ....and then learning he died of AIDS in his early 30s...with a life so full of promise otherwise...did affect me. That's fair to say. And what do you know? I've already said that. Dozens of times..

But you didn't watch him do any of that.

As you have said- you only found out about this third hand, after he died. Assuming of course that
a) You are telling the truth- which given your record is something that cannot be assumed and
b) That your brother told you the story truthfully and accurately and
c) That the brother who told your brother the story told the story truthfully and accurate and
d) That your supposed mass murdering friend told his story truthfully and accurately to his brother.

But lets assume that you were affected by the story of this friend of yours that really was a mass murderer- doesn't excuse your campaign against all homosexuals.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Well see- on that we are mostly in agreement. Of course mostly my gay friends laugh at angry Conservatives AND Liberals like I do.

Just so many more of those angry Conservatives.

So you laugh at people who are interested in protecting children? Why do you hate children?

I said I laugh at angry Conservatives and Liberals. I never said anything about laughing at people who are interested in protecting children.

I have a child- I work with children- and I want the children of gay parents to be able to have married parents- because children deserve married parents.

You are the one who wants to deny those children married parents- meaning you wish to cause these children- as Judge Kennedy said so succinctly "There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children,"

Whereas I think every child deserves more. Children long for a mother and a father and they are hurt when deprived of either.....even if they have two really cool moms...women cannot fill the psychological need for a father nor men for a mother.

When this happens by vicissitude it's tragic. When it happens by design, it's a hideous moral transgression.

 

[Syriusly]

Well see- on that we are mostly in agreement. Of course mostly my gay friends laugh at angry Conservatives AND Liberals like I do.

Just so many more of those angry Conservatives.

So you laugh at people who are interested in protecting children? Why do you hate children?

I said I laugh at angry Conservatives and Liberals. I never said anything about laughing at people who are interested in protecting children.

I have a child- I work with children- and I want the children of gay parents to be able to have married parents- because children deserve married parents.

You are the one who wants to deny those children married parents- meaning you wish to cause these children- as Judge Kennedy said so succinctly "There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children,"

Whereas I think every child deserves more. Children long for a mother and a father and they are hurt when deprived of either.....even if they have two really cool moms...women cannot fill the psychological need for a father nor men for a mother.

When this happens by vicissitude it's tragic. When it happens by design, it's a hideous moral transgression.

'a hideous moral transgression'?

Human beings have children under all sorts of circumstances. Far too many children are conceived unintentionally by couples who are not prepared to be parents.

We as a society have decided that parents have tremendous latitude in regarding what is appropriate in raising a child. There is no financial test to be a parent- no maturity test- no requirement to have a home.

No education requirement. No requirement to be alcohol or drug free. No requirement to not smoke cigarettes during a pregnancy or around new borns. No requirement to feed your child healthy food. No requirement to read to your children.

I suspect you have seen what I have seen- I have seen kids raised by what I thought were really good parents- turn out badly. And I have seen kids raised by what I consider to be bad parents survive and turn out to be good people.

I would prefer children be raised in the absolute optimal environment- but there is no universal agreement on what ideal environment would be.

But in my opinion- having watched this first hand- my first and foremost ideal is having loving parents who want their children. In my opinion, kids with loving parents who chose to be parents, have a much better chance in life, than parents by accident who cannot love their kids.

 

[Silhouette]

Whereas I think every child deserves more. Children long for a mother and a father and they are hurt when deprived of either.....even if they have two really cool moms...women cannot fill the psychological need for a father nor men for a mother.

When this happens by vicissitude it's tragic. When it happens by design, it's a hideous moral transgression.

Yes, and this proposed Amendment would go a long way towards remedying that. The Gold Standard of children's needs dominant to adult's wants would set that right again.

 

[Syriusly]

Whereas I think every child deserves more. Children long for a mother and a father and they are hurt when deprived of either.....even if they have two really cool moms...women cannot fill the psychological need for a father nor men for a mother.

When this happens by vicissitude it's tragic. When it happens by design, it's a hideous moral transgression.

Yes, and this proposed Amendment would go a long way towards remedying that. The Gold Standard of children's needs dominant to adult's wants would set that right again.

Well thanks for confirming that the intention of this 'proposed amendment' is nothing other than preventing gay persons from being allowed to raise their children.

So will your process include mandatory sterilization of lesbians in order to prevent them from becoming mothers?
Or will the state take any children that they have? And maybe put them in jail for child abuse?

But children being raised by single straight parents will of course be excluded from prosecution......

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Well see- on that we are mostly in agreement. Of course mostly my gay friends laugh at angry Conservatives AND Liberals like I do.

Just so many more of those angry Conservatives.

So you laugh at people who are interested in protecting children? Why do you hate children?

I said I laugh at angry Conservatives and Liberals. I never said anything about laughing at people who are interested in protecting children.

I have a child- I work with children- and I want the children of gay parents to be able to have married parents- because children deserve married parents.

You are the one who wants to deny those children married parents- meaning you wish to cause these children- as Judge Kennedy said so succinctly "There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children,"

Whereas I think every child deserves more. Children long for a mother and a father and they are hurt when deprived of either.....even if they have two really cool moms...women cannot fill the psychological need for a father nor men for a mother.

When this happens by vicissitude it's tragic. When it happens by design, it's a hideous moral transgression.

'a hideous moral transgression'?

Human beings have children under all sorts of circumstances. Far too many children are conceived unintentionally by couples who are not prepared to be parents.

We as a society have decided that parents have tremendous latitude in regarding what is appropriate in raising a child. There is no financial test to be a parent- no maturity test- no requirement to have a home.

No education requirement. No requirement to be alcohol or drug free. No requirement to not smoke cigarettes during a pregnancy or around new borns. No requirement to feed your child healthy food. No requirement to read to your children.

I suspect you have seen what I have seen- I have seen kids raised by what I thought were really good parents- turn out badly. And I have seen kids raised by what I consider to be bad parents survive and turn out to be good people.

I would prefer children be raised in the absolute optimal environment- but there is no universal agreement on what ideal environment would be.

But in my opinion- having watched this first hand- my first and foremost ideal is having loving parents who want their children. In my opinion, kids with loving parents who chose to be parents, have a much better chance in life, than parents by accident who cannot love their kids.

My gay friends are also our children's godparents, just so you know I'm not tone deaf to what you're arguing. I fully trust that should something tragic happen to my wife and I, the 4 half breeds will be well cared for.

But that arrangement illustrates the problem better than anything else I can argue. They represent option B and are not the ideal choice for my children, as is usually the case with godparents who are there just in case of a tragedy.

You won't labor hard to convince me that gay couples have a lot of love to give. I've seen it. But they are less than ideal for raising a child just like single parent homes and option B should never be artificially be made option A. Put another way, a home that lacks a mother or a father cannot ever be equal to a home with both. The failure of many homes to live up to what is optimally beneficial to a child is no excuse to ditch the ideal and arrange domestic structures designed to deprive a child of what he needs. It's simply unconscionable.

 

[Silhouette]

Well thanks for confirming that the intention of this 'proposed amendment' is nothing other than preventing gay persons from being allowed to raise their children......

On the contrary...the Amendment would address any and all questions of law before a judge, jury or tribunal on any type of issue that pitted an adult's wants and whims against a child's needs. It would run the gamut. It would be the Gold Standard. Children are the last class that cannot vote. As such this protection for them is vital.

a home that lacks a mother or a father cannot ever be equal to a home with both. The failure of many homes to live up to what is optimally beneficial to a child is no excuse to ditch the ideal and arrange domestic structures designed to deprive a child of what he needs. It's simply unconscionable.

Well put sir!

 

[Syriusly]

Well thanks for confirming that the intention of this 'proposed amendment' is nothing other than preventing gay persons from being allowed to raise their children......

Children are the last class that cannot vote. As such this protection for them is vital.

Not necessarily important- but no- they aren't.