New Civil Rights Movement: Children-Americans.

[QuickHitCurepon]

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.

Love is ALWAYS blind.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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.

Duh, the divorce rate has hovered around 50% for the last 50 years. Is there any surprise, children cannot ever get a break nowadays, and the situation only worsens? That is one reason they are targets of the LGBT community, when that should never have been allowed to fester.

http://www.apa.org/topics/divorce/

 

[Silhouette]

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.

Duh, the divorce rate has hovered around 50% for the last 50 years. Is there any surprise, children cannot ever get a break nowadays, and the situation only worsens? That is one reason they are targets of the LGBT community, when that should never have been allowed to fester.

http://www.apa.org/topics/divorce/

So your logic is "if something is half broken, go ahead and put a stick of dynamite under it and light it." Then you are in favor of all 50 states being forced to ratify polygamy and incest marriage? If not, why not? Those marriages might be bad for the kids involved?

 

[Silhouette]

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.

So you are claiming that:

1. Advocating for children's civil rights is "bordering on insanity" and

2. That you're in favor of half my OP & one of its links being deleted without notice, along with two pages of replies and the poll results tampered with.

Good to know what the far left has in mind for the rest of the country that disagrees with them..

 

[Silhouette]

WTF??? Two threads now? Hey moderators: I want this thread to be combined with the other and NONE of EITHER deleted. OK?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

Duh, the divorce rate has hovered around 50% for the last 50 years. Is there any surprise, children cannot ever get a break nowadays, and the situation only worsens? That is one reason they are targets of the LGBT community, when that should never have been allowed to fester.

http://www.apa.org/topics/divorce/

So your logic is "if something is half broken, go ahead and put a stick of dynamite under it and light it." Then you are in favor of all 50 states being forced to ratify polygamy and incest marriage? If not, why not? Those marriages might be bad for the kids involved?

I'm not sure why you included my quote there. I'm pretty sure we agree on this issue.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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.

Duh, the divorce rate has hovered around 50% for the last 50 years. Is there any surprise, children cannot ever get a break nowadays, and the situation only worsens? That is one reason they are targets of the LGBT community, when that should never have been allowed to fester.

http://www.apa.org/topics/divorce/

So your logic is "if something is half broken, go ahead and put a stick of dynamite under it and light it." Then you are in favor of all 50 states being forced to ratify polygamy and incest marriage? If not, why not? Those marriages might be bad for the kids involved?

You read far too much into that. It was solely an observation backed by a few statistics.

 

[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.

So you are claiming that:

1. Advocating for children's civil rights is "bordering on insanity" and

2. That you're in favor of half my OP & one of its links being deleted without notice, along with two pages of replies and the poll results tampered with.

Good to know what the far left has in mind for the rest of the country that disagrees with them..

It seems Quickhitcurepon was also in agreement that children victimized by LGBT is deplorable. Are you even reading these posts?

 

[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.

So you are claiming that:

1. Advocating for children's civil rights is "bordering on insanity" and

2. That you're in favor of half my OP & one of its links being deleted without notice, along with two pages of replies and the poll results tampered with.

Good to know what the far left has in mind for the rest of the country that disagrees with them..

Wow, you totally missed what I said. From my experience, posts that are inappropriate or nutty quickly disappear. Mods want to uphold the reputation of the forum.

So...anyone want to weigh in on where two pages went in this thread? One of the votes in the poll?

You were complaining and asking where some of the posts in your thread went. I gave you what has to be the only explanation.

 

[Silhouette]

Wow, you totally missed what I said. From my experience, posts that are inappropriate or nutty quickly disappear. Mods want to uphold the reputation of the forum.

If that was the case, half the threads in the political forum would be gone in an instant. I was selectively hit here. For sure.

 

[Syriusly]

But back to the topic...how is legally stripping via contract a child of its mother or father for life any different to how they used to do that to little black kids on cotton planatations back in the 1800s?

Yes- how is allowing the children of gay parents to have married parents the same as allowing the selling of 'little black kids'?

This is how depraved Silhouette's anti-gay campaign is.

She wants to claim that allowing children to have gay parents is the same thing as slavery.

What an asshole.

 

[Syriusly]

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*

Polygamists and incestuous couples could provide that 'mother and father' you claim a child is irredeemably harmed by without- oh wait- unless of course it is a straight couple divorcing- and then you claim a child is harmed if they don't have 'hope' that their parents will remarry or marry some new people to be the daddy or mommy.

This is just another one of your nutty "hate the gays" threads based upon what the voices in your head tell you.

It is very sad how you want to harm the children of gay parents.

 

[Syriusly]

[
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.

Shouldn't we ask that of all parents? Not just 'gay parents"

By many degrees- the main source of children missing either a father or mother in their lives is divorce between the biological parents and/or abandonment by one or both of the parents.

Children benefit from having two parents but we don't ask single parents to re-marry simply to provide different influence on their mental development. The main benefit from having two parents is frankly economic security- and all other things being equal- a child being raised by two parents, will be better off than a child being raised by one parent- regardless of gender.

But remember- Silhouette's purpose here is completely irrational. She wants to make 'gay marriage' illegal- and is using the issue of children as her vehicle.

Not a single child would gain an opposite gender parent under any of Silhouette's proposals- all that would happen is that children would lose the security of having two married parents.

In other words- Silhouette's proposals would help no children- but would hurt some children- and she knows this.

She is willing to harm children in order to harm gay Americans.

 

[EverCurious]

Take it down to it's base and you have a biological drive to have children that is completely without any true consideration of the financial, mental, health, or any other possible flaw. In the end all people are but animals with a drive to reproduce regardless of such outward considerations. When we speak "as a society" obviously we want to balance the well-being of children, but at the same time the rights of an individual to make such a choice is none of anyone else's business.

My second son was conceived knowing full well that my ex-husband and I were divorcing, both of us had made a conscious choice that we made good kids and had a great "divorced" relationship. While not quite fitting in with this conversation, in that my ex-husband was involved with the kiddos, the arguments being presented here would claim I should /not/ have had my second son due to some bullshit morality /opinions/ Who the hell are you people to presume you know what is best for me and my family? Nobody. It is /my/ life and I have the right to make decisions for myself, AND my children, as to when is the "right" time and what environment my children are to be raised in.

That is the bottom line when it comes to this matter. It's none of your business, period. No one has the right to make decisions about something so sacred as the timing of parenthood nor the /personal/ relationships an adult has with another consenting adult. So, as much as you folks hate gays, you cannot use their "right" to have children as a method of punishment - and frankly I find it disgusting that you folks wish to do so. With all due respect, **** off.

 

[Silhouette]

Nice strawman. But it has nothing to do with states setting incentives called "marriage". Children come into this world under all sorts of circumstances. What marriage is, is a benefit for CHILDREN. It's why it was created...to incentivize a man and woman building a house as father and mother so that children in general benefit from that.

"Anything goes" doesn't suffice for that best interest. Sure, many children have inferior lives...from divorce, winding up in gay or polygamist or incest homes. Marriage between a man and a woman is the incentive to stop those unfortunate situations. That's what it's for.

 

[Syriusly]

What marriage is, is a benefit for CHILDREN. It's why it was created...to incentivize a man and woman building a house as father and mother so that children in general benefit from that..

You keep saying that- but you realize the voices in your head is not proof of anything- right?

Marriage in its earliest sense was for clear inheritance roles- who was a legitimate child of the father. Sometimes it had to do with property rights also.

It has never had anything to do with creating a general benefit for children.

Which is why the 'benefit' of children is not even considered in either
a) granting a marriage license or
b) granting a divorce.

And please stop lying about divorce- while the custody of children(if any) will get discussed in a divorce- the welfare of children does not determine whether or not a court will grant a divorce.

Preventing gay couples from marrying will not help a single child.
But it will hurt the children of all gay couples.

Why do you want to hurt the children of gay parents?

 

[Silhouette]

Why do you want to hurt the children of polygamy and incest?

 

[EverCurious]

Me? You're barking at the wrong tree - and I've noted this before on here as well.

I have no issues with polygamy and the only issue I have with incest is genetics - if they can resolve that then I could give a crap less who's ******* and marrying whom. It is none of my business, nor does it effect my life in any way shape or form if some wierdo wants to bork his mom. Have at them all.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

[
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.

Shouldn't we ask that of all parents? Not just 'gay parents"

By many degrees- the main source of children missing either a father or mother in their lives is divorce between the biological parents and/or abandonment by one or both of the parents.

Children benefit from having two parents but we don't ask single parents to re-marry simply to provide different influence on their mental development. The main benefit from having two parents is frankly economic security- and all other things being equal- a child being raised by two parents, will be better off than a child being raised by one parent- regardless of gender.

But remember- Silhouette's purpose here is completely irrational. She wants to make 'gay marriage' illegal- and is using the issue of children as her vehicle.

Not a single child would gain an opposite gender parent under any of Silhouette's proposals- all that would happen is that children would lose the security of having two married parents.

In other words- Silhouette's proposals would help no children- but would hurt some children- and she knows this.

She is willing to harm children in order to harm gay Americans.

Yes we should ask that of all parents and I did in the post you quoted. And having a mother AND a father is more than about economics to a child.

Children who lost their mother at birth and are being raised by their father, for example, look at other kids with mothers and long for what they have. Why isn't his father's love enough?

Solution one: bring another "dad" into the mix. This solves nothing because it's only more of the same. One dad, two dads, ten dads can't replace the unique influence of a mother.

Solution two: have female influences for the child. Many parents make this mistake, thinking that a missing parent can be replaced by a close aquaintance of that gender. But motherhood is not just feminine, it's maternal, relational. Outsiders cannot immitate this.

No matter what is tried, even if dad remarries, the child is at a loss and no solution avails......Now image doing this to a child intentionally! The problem with the Left is that in the absence of God whom you have ousted, selfishness reigns, the love of self pleasure that displaces the sacrificial love that all children need. If you truly love children you would not even think of being so cruel and selfish to them.

It is absolutely wrong!

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Would be great if the moderators could find and return the missing two pages of this thread, taken last night..

They done wiped them with a cloth.