New Civil Rights Movement: Children-Americans.

[EverCurious]

I'm afraid I'm with MDK on that. I had about a split-second thought about posting something but I realized it's you Sil... You twist laws and studies into saying things they don't, lie about stuff, and generally do little more than waste time. It gets old, I decided not to bother having the same arguments yet again. I mean you even opened with the Trust study which everyone has noted a hundred times doesn't say what you "want" it to say... It's just not worth discussing again because your stuck in an obsession. Sorry.

 

[mdk]

Get over yourself, Sil. The real reason your threads are not getting very much traffic is b/c you're a sad one-trick pony. Nobody is frightened that they might get banned for posting in your threads, drama queen.

Yeah, I'm sure nobody is alarmed that a thread had it's OP chopped in half, a link deleted, the poll results tampered with and two pages of replies deleted without notification or cause. I'm sure it just doesn't affect at all anyone posting on this thread.

Contact a moderator if you want answers. Or you could could whine about how it and compare some posts being deleted on message board to the plight of Jews in Nazi Germany. lol

 

[mdk]

I'm afraid I'm with MDK on that. I had about a split-second thought about posting something but I realized it's you Sil... You twist laws and studies into saying things they don't, lie about stuff, and generally do little more than waste time. It gets old, I decided not to bother having the same arguments yet again. I mean you even opened with the Trust study which everyone has noted a hundred times doesn't say what you "want" it to say... It's just not worth discussing again because your stuck in an obsession. Sorry.

It's why I've been pretty much avoding her threads lately. It's the same tired bullshit over and over again.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I don't know why everyone is jumping on Sil. The OP is well articulated and entirely correct. Children are wronged when deliberately deprived of a mother or a father. Inflicting that kind of harm on a child is not a gay right.

Debate the issue, not the personality.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm afraid I'm with MDK on that. I had about a split-second thought about posting something but I realized it's you Sil... You twist laws and studies into saying things they don't, lie about stuff, and generally do little more than waste time. It gets old, I decided not to bother having the same arguments yet again. I mean you even opened with the Trust study which everyone has noted a hundred times doesn't say what you "want" it to say... It's just not worth discussing again because your stuck in an obsession. Sorry.

That's a rather odd accusation against someone like me who habitually posts links right next to the quotes I provide that back up my assertions so that readers can double-check.

Whereas you and your ilk constantly claim stuff and demand everyone accept it as "academic proof" with almost never providing quotes or links.

Indeed I suspect the butcher of this thread is one of your own, an LGBT activist who even deleted one crucial link where you folks contend there's "no merit". And that is the link to the Infancy Doctrine's discussion as it pertains to the rights of children legally. *poof*. Gone.

So y'all have a lot of GALL to claim I twist facts when you disappear my links to the source of my claims.

Cults are scary. Crusades, disappearing things, evangelizing to little kids in grade school.. gaslighting, gang-attacks.. Just Wow.

 

[mdk]

I don't know why everyone is jumping on Sil. The OP is well articulated and entirely correct. Children are wronged when deliberately deprived of a mother or a father. Inflicting that kind of harm on a child is not a gay right.

Debate the issue, not the personality.

And Sil's solution in no way addresses her problem. Prohibiting gays from getting married doesn't stop them from raising their children. I've asked on numerous occasions what is her end game and she flees the question every times.

 

[Silhouette]

And Sil's solution in no way addresses her problem. Prohibiting gays from getting married doesn't stop them from raising their children. I've asked on numerous occasions what is her end game and she flees the question every times.

For that matter, prohibiting polygamists and incest couple from getting married doesn't stop them from raising children. Having children stuck with you doesn't automatically qualify you for marrying anyone you take a whim to. In fact, because a child or children are involved, you pay extra attention to the gold standard you set called "marriage"... The benefits of marriage are a lure, not a guarantee no matter what... States lure people to get married within a very specific structure they set...not for the benefit of adults but for the benefits of children states bet with good odds will arrive in any marriage.

...Because it was conceived of and established for children in the first place! The peculiars of its structure are VITAL to children's best shot at life.

Marriage has never been and isn't a "come one and come all" affair; precisely because of children.

*waits for the midnight thread-butcher to come and delete this particular post*

 

[mdk]

And Sil's solution in no way addresses her problem. Prohibiting gays from getting married doesn't stop them from raising their children. I've asked on numerous occasions what is her end game and she flees the question every times.

For that matter, prohibiting polygamists and incest couple from getting married doesn't stop them from raising children. Having children stuck with you doesn't automatically qualify you for marrying anyone you take a whim to. In fact, because a child or children are involved, you pay extra attention to the gold standard you set called "marriage"... Because it was conceived of and established for children in the first place!

Exactly. Your solution in no way stops gay people from raising children. That is and will always be your goal, to stop gays from marrying. You claim the civil rights of children are being violated b/c a gay couple doesn't provide a mother or father. Your own household is missing a father, but somehow that isn't violating the civil rights of children b/c the standard you set for gays doesn't apply to you. Worry about your own house before telling others how they should run theirs.

 

[Silhouette]

And Sil's solution in no way addresses her problem. Prohibiting gays from getting married doesn't stop them from raising their children. I've asked on numerous occasions what is her end game and she flees the question every times.

For that matter, prohibiting polygamists and incest couple from getting married doesn't stop them from raising children. Having children stuck with you doesn't automatically qualify you for marrying anyone you take a whim to. In fact, because a child or children are involved, you pay extra attention to the gold standard you set called "marriage"... Because it was conceived of and established for children in the first place!

Exactly. Your solution in no way stops gay people from raising children. That is and will always be your goal, to stop gays from marrying.

I think your goal is to stop polygamists and incest people from raising children. This will always be your goal.

What I actually said was (noticed you also chopped the crap out of my quote) that states entice marrying for the benefit of children, with certain parameters states set for the best interest of children. Would you say polygamists or incest couples set the best parameters for the interest of children in marriage? Why should states be forced to incentivize these "marriages" if states believe these physical structures would harm children?

 

[mdk]

And Sil's solution in no way addresses her problem. Prohibiting gays from getting married doesn't stop them from raising their children. I've asked on numerous occasions what is her end game and she flees the question every times.

For that matter, prohibiting polygamists and incest couple from getting married doesn't stop them from raising children. Having children stuck with you doesn't automatically qualify you for marrying anyone you take a whim to. In fact, because a child or children are involved, you pay extra attention to the gold standard you set called "marriage"... Because it was conceived of and established for children in the first place!

Exactly. Your solution in no way stops gay people from raising children. That is and will always be your goal, to stop gays from marrying.

I think your goal is to stop polygamists and incest people from raising children. This will always be your goal.

What I actually said was (noticed you also chopped the crap out of my quote) that states entice marrying for the benefit of children, with certain parameters states set for the best interest of children. Would you say polygamists or incest couples set the best parameters for the interest of children in marriage? Why should states be forced to incentivize these "marriages" if states believe these physical structures would harm children?

I was already responding to your post while you were editing it. I didn't chop anything, whiner.

You accuse gay people of violating the civil rights of children b/c they don't provide a mother or father. Using your own logic, you are just as guilty considering you do not have a father in your household. Funny how your standards never seem to apply to you, though.


That being said, I really don't care to have this same lame debate with you for the hundredth or so time. Gay people can marry, raise their children, and, you can't do squat about it. Don't like it? Tough shit.

 

[Silhouette]

You accuse gay people of violating the civil rights of children b/c they don't provide a mother or father. Using your own logic, you are just as guilty considering you do not have a father in your household. Funny how your standards never seem to apply to you, though.


That being said, I really don't care to have this same lame debate with you for the hundredth or so time. Gay people can marry, raise their children, and, you can't do squat about it. Don't like it? Tough shit.

In other words, you won't talk about how children with polygamists or those of incest are suffering without the benefits of marriage. When you put you big boy pants on and want to answer my direct question about that, let us know, OK?

Would you say polygamists or incest couples set the best parameters for the interest of children in marriage? Why should states be forced to incentivize these "marriages" if states believe these physical structures would harm children?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I don't know why everyone is jumping on Sil. The OP is well articulated and entirely correct. Children are wronged when deliberately deprived of a mother or a father. Inflicting that kind of harm on a child is not a gay right.

Debate the issue, not the personality.

And Sil's solution in no way addresses her problem. Prohibiting gays from getting married doesn't stop them from raising their children. I've asked on numerous occasions what is her end game and she flees the question every times.

Prohibiting gay marriage was a silly idea to begin with, something I've come to understand recently. It's like Romeo and Juliet, you can't keep people apart who love each other and the powers that try only become an insufferable tyrant to be opposed by people of good will.

Two very dear friends of my family are a lesbian couple that married a few months after Obergefell. We were only too happy to attend their wedding. They are so close to us that the kids call them aunts and one of them was my favorite teacher in Jr. high school.....just to give you a picture of what they mean to us.

But they differ from gays on a lot of issues. One of them is a Republican and the other an Independent and they are virtuous and conscientious ladies. When asked what they think about having children together, they say, "If we wanted children we would have married men." Their dogs and being adopted aunts to our children is all they need.

I agree with you that there is no device of law that can keep gay couples from raising children, but we can ask them to do the right thing and put the child's needs above their desire to have it all. The words of Pope Francis in the OP are very wise. My children benefit more from the unique and irreplaceable influence I have as their father and my wife has as their mother. We are both critical to their mental and developmental well being. That is what all children deserve.

 

[mdk]

You accuse gay people of violating the civil rights of children b/c they don't provide a mother or father. Using your own logic, you are just as guilty considering you do not have a father in your household. Funny how your standards never seem to apply to you, though.


That being said, I really don't care to have this same lame debate with you for the hundredth or so time. Gay people can marry, raise their children, and, you can't do squat about it. Don't like it? Tough shit.

In other words, you won't talk about how children with polygamists or those of incest are suffering without the benefits of marriage. When you put you big boy pants on and want to answer my direct question about that, let us know, OK?

Would you say polygamists or incest couples set the best parameters for the interest of children in marriage? Why should states be forced to incentivize these "marriages" if states believe these physical structures would harm children?

I love watching you hijack and deflect in your own thread.

 

[mdk]

I don't know why everyone is jumping on Sil. The OP is well articulated and entirely correct. Children are wronged when deliberately deprived of a mother or a father. Inflicting that kind of harm on a child is not a gay right.

Debate the issue, not the personality.

And Sil's solution in no way addresses her problem. Prohibiting gays from getting married doesn't stop them from raising their children. I've asked on numerous occasions what is her end game and she flees the question every times.

Prohibiting gay marriage was a silly idea to begin with, something I've come to understand recently. It's like Romeo and Juliet, you can't keep people apart who love each other and the powers that try only become an insufferable tyrant to be opposed by people of good will.

Two very dear friends of my family are a lesbian couple that married a few months after Obergefell. We were only too happy to attend their wedding. They are so close to us that the kids call them aunts and one of them was my favorite teacher in Jr. high school.....just to give you a picture of what they mean to us.

But they differ from gays on a lot of issues. One of them is a Republican and the other an Independent and they are virtuous and conscientious ladies. When asked what they think about having children together, they say, "If we wanted children we would have married men." Their dogs and being adopted aunts to our children is all they need.

I agree with you that there is no device of law that can keep gay couples from raising children, but we can ask them to do the right thing and put the child's needs above their desire to have it all. The words of Pope Francis in the OP are very wise. My children benefit more from the unique and irreplaceable influence I have as their father and my wife has as their mother. We are both critical to their mental and developmental well being. That is what all children deserve.

My biggest concern is whether or not the parents can provide a stable and loving household for their children, whether they are gay or straight. My husband and I do not want wish to have children, but you can bet the farm that they would grow up in stable and loving environment if we did. I am blessed with numerous nieces and nephews that we get spoil rotten and that is good enough for the both of us.

 

[Silhouette]

My biggest concern is whether or not the parents can provide a stable and loving household for their children, whether they are gay or straight. My husband and I do not want wish to have children, but you can bet the farm that they would grow up in stable and loving environment if we did. I am blessed with numerous nieces and nephews that we get spoil rotten and that is good enough for the both of us.

So then if children of incest or polygamists desire the benefits of marriage then, yes? Already legal per the spirit of the 14th Amendment and behavior-as-race precedent..

 

[EverCurious]

I find this whole argument, and the hundreds of others before it, as usual, ridiculously slanted toward hatred of LGBTs and having nothing to do with children at all.

All over this country children are raised without parents - even those in traditional man and wife marriages are raised by parents who put their careers over their kids. I am one of those. My mother hired a babysitter, happened to be a woman, and that is who raised me until I was old enough to fend for myself - which occurred somewhere around middle school. I saw my bio-father for a month or so in the summers when we visited my mothers family out of state, and my step-father was a General. I saw my parents for perhaps a few hours each night, not every night either for they played darts, so maybe three or four nights a week. On the weekends I was in my room on my computer and before I even hit HS I was out of the house every chance I could be, so with the exception of my weekly room "inspection" to ensure it was clean, I basically raised myself after Jr. HS.

By the theory presented, it is some kind of negligent abuse because my step-father had very little to do with me - in fact, we rather viciously hated each other until long after I moved out. My bio father was... completely uninvolved - there's an old fashioned idea that mom knows best or something so he essentially cut ties as my "father" after the divorce (which was when I was 5 and again due to career choices. My bio-dad left the army and went back to the farm when grandpa had a heart attack, my mom was working for the FAA and didn't want to leave her career and return to the Dakota's, so that was that.)

This is not a new concept at all either, throughout history the father was generally absent of the raising of the kids - it's reflected very clearly in our legal system as well; which only recently starting to even question the long standing idea that children are /not/ always best off in mothers custody. The idea of father's having little to do with the raising of children is even further espoused by general theories of law.

IF it were so imperative for a child to have an 'involved' father in their lives, then the courts would not specifically mandate that a step-father (or any step-parent) has /any/ say what-so-ever in how their step-child is raised. When my husband was in court over the custody of his son, both myself (step-mom) and the mother's husband (step-dad) were explicitly informed that we had zero rights nor say-so on Andrew's upbringing - to include, the step-dad was specifically informed that he was NOT allowed to enforce Andrew's attendance to church, and /I/ was specifically told that I was not allowed to take Andrew to his doctors appointments anymore and I was cautioned that I should not suggest "activities" to Andrew (which was RE Boy Scouts, which my kids were into and Andrew jumped on board so I'd kind of pushed for him to go as well -- I consider the survival skills learned in Scouts to be a great thing for Alaskan's.)

Thus I argue that even long-standing "traditional" legalities based on "values" do not point to /any/ indications that a father is some kind of magic key to a child's well being.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Why were the two pages of replies removed from this thread? And one of the votes in the poll?

A bored out of his or her mind mod?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

So...anyone want to weigh in on where two pages went in this thread? One of the votes in the poll? And about half my OP? Why leave out JUST the link to the Infancy Doctrine? Something there you don't want readers to read?

Although, I must say, fortunately, they do quickly delete posts that border on insanity.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So...anyone want to weigh in on where two pages went in this thread? One of the votes in the poll? And about half my OP? Why leave out JUST the link to the Infancy Doctrine? Something there you don't want readers to read?

Although, I must say, fortunately, they do quickly delete posts that border on insanity.

Naaah!

I see your posts all the time!

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I find this whole argument, and the hundreds of others before it, as usual, ridiculously slanted toward hatred of LGBTs and having nothing to do with children at all.

All over this country children are raised without parents - even those in traditional man and wife marriages are raised by parents who put their careers over their kids. I am one of those. My mother hired a babysitter, happened to be a woman, and that is who raised me until I was old enough to fend for myself - which occurred somewhere around middle school. I saw my bio-father for a month or so in the summers when we visited my mothers family out of state, and my step-father was a General. I saw my parents for perhaps a few hours each night, not every night either for they played darts, so maybe three or four nights a week. On the weekends I was in my room on my computer and before I even hit HS I was out of the house every chance I could be, so with the exception of my weekly room "inspection" to ensure it was clean, I basically raised myself after Jr. HS.

By the theory presented, it is some kind of negligent abuse because my step-father had very little to do with me - in fact, we rather viciously hated each other until long after I moved out. My bio father was... completely uninvolved - there's an old fashioned idea that mom knows best or something so he essentially cut ties as my "father" after the divorce (which was when I was 5 and again due to career choices. My bio-dad left the army and went back to the farm when grandpa had a heart attack, my mom was working for the FAA and didn't want to leave her career and return to the Dakota's, so that was that.)

This is not a new concept at all either, throughout history the father was generally absent of the raising of the kids - it's reflected very clearly in our legal system as well; which only recently starting to even question the long standing idea that children are /not/ always best off in mothers custody. The idea of father's having little to do with the raising of children is even further espoused by general theories of law.

IF it were so imperative for a child to have an 'involved' father in their lives, then the courts would not specifically mandate that a step-father (or any step-parent) has /any/ say what-so-ever in how their step-child is raised. When my husband was in court over the custody of his son, both myself (step-mom) and the mother's husband (step-dad) were explicitly informed that we had zero rights nor say-so on Andrew's upbringing - to include, the step-dad was specifically informed that he was NOT allowed to enforce Andrew's attendance to church, and /I/ was specifically told that I was not allowed to take Andrew to his doctors appointments anymore and I was cautioned that I should not suggest "activities" to Andrew (which was RE Boy Scouts, which my kids were into and Andrew jumped on board so I'd kind of pushed for him to go as well -- I consider the survival skills learned in Scouts to be a great thing for Alaskan's.)

Thus I argue that even long-standing "traditional" legalities based on "values" do not point to /any/ indications that a father is some kind of magic key to a child's well being.

You're not making a new argument, just restating old arguments that fail the logic test. There's a difference between a child deprived of a mother or a father due to unforeseen circumstances and deliberately erecting a domestic structure that precludes a mother or a father.

And other than death, everything else is within control. Even divorces are most often the result of choosing poorly, ignoring red flags in the name of love and blind, foolish optimism and then even more foolishly bringing children into an unstable marriage. The reason this issue elicits such fierce opposition from people is because of guilt. Every divorce involving children is a monstrous failure of both parents in nearly every case, even parents who refuse to take responsibility.

You're right that children are often the victim of broken homes, but that falls short of justifying creating one by design as in with gay couples acting as co parents. In both cases, the crime being committed here is selfish indulgence and pursuing one's own desires and welfare at the expense of the child's.

It's inexcusable.