Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate

[Silhouette]

Sil is at least making progress. She has finally admitted that this study doesn't mention gay parents or gay marriage but of course that won't stop her from trying to act as if does.

The Prince's Trust study from the OP concludes how children are experiencing depression, indegency, drug use and a feeling of not belonging directly from not having a role model of their gender growing up.

50% of children in any "gay marriage" will be without their same gender as a role model growing up.

THEREFORE, the Prince's Trust study applies DIRECTLY to the topic of "gay marriage".

 

[mdk]

Sil is at least making progress. She has finally admitted that this study doesn't mention gay parents or gay marriage but of course that won't stop her from trying to act as if does.

The Prince's Trust study from the OP concludes how children are experiencing depression, indegency, drug use and a feeling of not belonging directly from not having a role model of their gender growing up.

50% of children in any "gay marriage" will be without their same gender as a role model growing up.

THEREFORE, the Prince's Trust study applies DIRECTLY to the topic of "gay marriage".

No, it really doesn't. The Prince's Trust never studies gay parents or gay marriage making it entirely irrelevant. You may as well quote a study from The Neilsen ratings b/c it would have just as much relevance to the topic. You're getting more and more desperate.

Even if you get your wish and gay marriage becomes outlawed again, unlikely as that is, you're crusade in no way stop gays from raising children, it only stops them from getting married.

 

[Silhouette]

No, it really doesn't. The Prince's Trust never studies gay parents or gay marriage making it entirely irrelevant. You may as well quote a study from The Neilsen ratings b/c it would have just as much relevance to the topic. You're getting more and more desperate.

Even if you get your wish and gay marriage becomes outlawed again, unlikely as that is, you're crusade in no way stop gays from raising children, it only stops them from getting married.

Not "outlawed" ..dumbass...returned to the jurisdiction and authority of the states where it actually currently is right now, but the US Supreme Court is violating it's own Windsor Findings by not issuing the stays they are legally bound to issue in advance of the Hearing.

It is very important that the consensus of the governed be involved in setting the atmosphere and incentives for a child's best formative environment (marriage). That should not be dictated by 5 people sitting in Washington DC for untold 100s of millions of children yet to be born; especially in light of the Prince's Trust study's findings in the OP.

 

[mdk]

No, it really doesn't. The Prince's Trust never studies gay parents or gay marriage making it entirely irrelevant. You may as well quote a study from The Neilsen ratings b/c it would have just as much relevance to the topic. You're getting more and more desperate.

Even if you get your wish and gay marriage becomes outlawed again, unlikely as that is, you're crusade in no way stop gays from raising children, it only stops them from getting married.

Not "outlawed" ..dumbass...returned to the jurisdiction and authority of the states where it actually currently is right now, but the US Supreme Court is violating it's own Windsor Findings by not issuing the stays they are legally bound to issue in advance of the Hearing.

It is very important that the consensus of the governed be involved in setting the atmosphere and incentives for a child's best formative environment (marriage). That should not be dictated by 5 people sitting in Washington DC for untold 100s of millions of children yet to be born; especially in light of the Prince's Trust study's findings in the OP.

You have been schooled on this idea that the court is ignoring it's own ruling in Windsor on numerous occasions and by numerous posters.

Shows us all in The Prince's Trust where they study or even mention gay parents. The only place that does is in your narrow mind. Again, if your points were so compelling you would not have to lie and make no mistake when it comes to this issue you lie as effortlessly as I breath.

I am not one to gloat or spike the football after a touchdown but come June, if the court rules as I predict, I am going to take great satisfaction rubbing your silly and sanctimonious face in it.

 

[Silhouette]

I am not one to gloat or spike the football after a touchdown but come June, if the court rules as I predict, I am going to take great satisfaction rubbing your silly and sanctimonious face in it.

You mean the victory of reaffirming that the question of a lifestyle marriage that changes the fundamental structure of parenting should be left up to the states instead of federally mandated along with all the others in the name of "marriage equality" who might apply?

That will be a great day indeed.

 

[mdk]

I am not one to gloat or spike the football after a touchdown but come June, if the court rules as I predict, I am going to take great satisfaction rubbing your silly and sanctimonious face in it.

You mean the victory of reaffirming that the question of a lifestyle marriage that changes the fundamental structure of parenting should be left up to the states instead of federally mandated along with all the others in the name of "marriage equality" who might apply?

That will be a great day indeed.

Which in now way would prevent gays from raising children. It would only prevent their parents from getting married.

States still get to set marriage policies but those policies will still be subject to certain constitutional guarantees.

You and your ilk don't really have any good arguments to deny gays access to marriage and the cases you folks have been presenting in the courts only prove that fact.

 

[JoeB131]

The Prince's Trust study from the OP concludes how children are experiencing depression, indegency, drug use and a feeling of not belonging directly from not having a role model of their gender growing up.

50% of children in any "gay marriage" will be without their same gender as a role model growing up.

THEREFORE, the Prince's Trust study applies DIRECTLY to the topic of "gay marriage".

Oh, please. First, the Prince Trust study is garbage.

Second, if straight parents were really a guard against that, we wouldn't have so many depressed, drug using kids who turn into self-pitying adults.

 

[PGreen]

Supporters of same-sex marriage think that children really just need love, but this is not the case. Research shows that the ideal family structure for children is to be raised by both a mother and a father. Only this traditional type of family gives children the chance to relate to both a same-sex parent and a parent of the opposite sex.

 

[Syriusly]

I am not one to gloat or spike the football after a touchdown but come June, if the court rules as I predict, I am going to take great satisfaction rubbing your silly and sanctimonious face in it.

You mean the victory of reaffirming that the question of a lifestyle marriage that changes the fundamental structure of parenting should be left up to the states instead of federally mandated along with all the others in the name of "marriage equality" who might apply?

That will be a great day indeed.

But Silhouette will continue to lie.

What is it Taylor Swift says?

And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate
Baby, I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake
I shake it off, I shake it off
Heart-breakers gonna break, break, break, break, break
And the fakers gonna fake, fake, fake, fake, fake

 

[Syriusly]

Supporters of same-sex marriage think that children really just need love, but this is not the case. Research shows that the ideal family structure for children is to be raised by both a mother and a father. Only this traditional type of family gives children the chance to relate to both a same-sex parent and a parent of the opposite sex.

I would like to start this response with the premise that you are interested in genuine dialogue on the issue.

First of all, let us presume for a moment that what you claim is true(I don't agree that it is, but let us presume it is).

a) The largest population of children not being raised by both a mother and a father are the children of single parents. IF the concern is regarding children not being raised in an 'optimal environment' what are the actions being taken to help those children?

b) Gay couples are having children. That is just a fact. What do you propose to do about those children? Like the children being raised by single parents- they exist- and can't be ignored. And unlike the children being raised by single parents, these children are being raised in a 2 parent home, which will translate to more economic and food security for the child.

c) Preventing gay marriage does not prevent gay couples from having children- it only prevents those children from having married parents. How do you think that preventing same gender marriage would help children?

I welcome a rational discussion on the issues.

 

[Silhouette]

You mean the victory of reaffirming that the question of a lifestyle marriage that changes the fundamental structure of parenting should be left up to the states instead of federally mandated along with all the others in the name of "marriage equality" who might apply?

That will be a great day indeed.

Which in now way would prevent gays from raising children. It would only prevent their parents from getting married....States still get to set marriage policies but those policies will still be subject to certain constitutional guarantees....You and your ilk don't really have any good arguments to deny gays access to marriage and the cases you folks have been presenting in the courts only prove that fact.

We cannot prevent wolves or pedophiles from raising kids either. We try but we just can't ferret out all those situations. Same with polygamists a la Warren Jeffs. Are you suggesting that a bad situation would be made better by bestowing it with a marriage license?

See, this is exactly my point. Thanks for making it, again..

There are no constitutional guarantees for any person to dismantle the fundamental meaning and structure of the word "marriage" (man/woman) and change it to suit their current deviant sex fad whims to the demise of children: the most important people in marriage. Childrens' custodians (the voters and lawmakers of the separate states) have a DOMINANT RIGHT to any rights you claim, to regulate law in such a fashion as to be in the best interest of children. Ergo, states have a DOMINANT RIGHT to gays, polygamists, wolves and so on to which people get the perks of marriage as an incentive to set up the best situation possible for kids in a home.

Plead your case to the 10s of millions in your state, not just 5 people in the Supreme Court in DC. What's at stake for children into the untold future using them as guinea pigs in this social experiment needs the voices of the many, not the few. It worked for you in New York, surely with some more pleading and PR your group could convince California?

As I said in the OP and I'll repeat here. It would be better for a single hetero parent to get the benefits of marriage for the sake of those 10s of millions of kids currently without benefits than it would people calling themselves "gay" by what they choose to do in their bedroom. Why? Because a single hetero parent by dating and reaching out to the opposite gender would still be sending the message to an opposite gendered child in her home "see honey, your gender really does matter to me still". A homosexual situation would be sending the opposite message daily, in addition to depriving the child of his gender as a role model: "Honey, your gender NEVER matters at all: your gender (implied to the formative mind: YOU) are disposable/useless in an adult society"..

 

[mdk]

You mean the victory of reaffirming that the question of a lifestyle marriage that changes the fundamental structure of parenting should be left up to the states instead of federally mandated along with all the others in the name of "marriage equality" who might apply?

That will be a great day indeed.

Which in now way would prevent gays from raising children. It would only prevent their parents from getting married....States still get to set marriage policies but those policies will still be subject to certain constitutional guarantees....You and your ilk don't really have any good arguments to deny gays access to marriage and the cases you folks have been presenting in the courts only prove that fact.

We cannot prevent wolves or pedophiles from raising kids either. We try but we just can't ferret out all those situations. Same with polygamists a la Warren Jeffs. Are you suggesting that a bad situation would be made better by bestowing it with a marriage license?

See, this is exactly my point. Thanks for making it, again..

There are no constitutional guarantees for any person to dismantle the fundamental meaning and structure of the word "marriage" (man/woman) and change it to suit their current deviant sex fad whims to the demise of children: the most important people in marriage. Childrens' custodians (the voters and lawmakers of the separate states) have a DOMINANT RIGHT to any rights you claim, to regulate law in such a fashion as to be in the best interest of children. Ergo, states have a DOMINANT RIGHT to gays, polygamists, wolves and so on to which people get the perks of marriage as an incentive to set up the best situation possible for kids in a home.

As I said in the OP and I'll repeat here. It would be better for a single hetero parent to get the benefits of marriage for the sake of those 10s of millions of kids currently without benefits than it would people calling themselves "gay" by what they choose to do in their bedroom. Why? Because a single hetero parent by dating and reaching out to the opposite gender would still be sending the message to an opposite gendered child in her home "see honey, your gender really does matter to me still". A homosexual situation would be sending the opposite message daily, in addition to depriving the child of his gender as a role model: "Honey, your gender NEVER matters at all: your gender (implied to the formative mind: YOU) are disposable in an adult society"..

Gay people raising children is exactly like wolves and pedophiles raising children. What a startling revelation! No wonder you and your ilk keeps getting their asses laughed out of almost every courtroom.

The only reason you believe gays raising children is "a bad situation" is b/c you ignore or misrepresent (Prince's Trust) every study that doesn't fit your narrative. Now this is the part where you'll gas on about the APA despite the fact that a myriad of studies state otherwise and have nothing to do with the APA. Just b/c you ignore these inconvenient studies doesn't mean we or the courts are compelled to do so as well.

Again, you can make the claim until you are blue in the face that marriage is only about children but those that do not or cannot have children get married all the time. You are set up standard that doesn't exist for anyone and than apply it solely to gay people which just laughable tripe.

 

[Syriusly]

You mean the victory of reaffirming that the question of a lifestyle marriage that changes the fundamental structure of parenting should be left up to the states instead of federally mandated along with all the others in the name of "marriage equality" who might apply?

That will be a great day indeed.

Which in now way would prevent gays from raising children. It would only prevent their parents from getting married....States still get to set marriage policies but those policies will still be subject to certain constitutional guarantees....You and your ilk don't really have any good arguments to deny gays access to marriage and the cases you folks have been presenting in the courts only prove that fact.

We cannot prevent wolves or pedophiles from raising kids either..

Hmmm actually we can.

First of all- I think it would be prudent not to allow wolves to be near children, as they would see children primarily as a tasty snack.

Secondly we can and do prevent known pedophiles from raising children.

And not surprisingly, neither of those extremely odd statements have anything to do with my post.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Supporters of same-sex marriage think that children really just need love, but this is not the case. Research shows that the ideal family structure for children is to be raised by both a mother and a father. Only this traditional type of family gives children the chance to relate to both a same-sex parent and a parent of the opposite sex.

Did you know that almost every state allows homosexuals to adopt?

The only one I can think of off the top of my head that does not is Arkansas, that's because Arkansas limits adoption to married couples and since it prohibits same-sex couples from Civilly Marrying, they can't adopt.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Did you know that almost every state allows homosexuals to adopt?

The only one I can think of off the top of my head that does not is Arkansas, that's because Arkansas limits adoption to married couples and since it prohibits same-sex couples from Civilly Marrying, they can't adopt.

How, pray tell, would the state know if a single person was homosexual in order to make that call?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Did you know that almost every state allows homosexuals to adopt?

The only one I can think of off the top of my head that does not is Arkansas, that's because Arkansas limits adoption to married couples and since it prohibits same-sex couples from Civilly Marrying, they can't adopt.

How, pray tell, would the state know if a single person was homosexual in order to make that call?

Never been through an adoption have you? I have.

There are forms to fill out, personal histories, background investigations, reference checks, home visits, etc.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Never been through an adoption have you? I have.

There are forms to fill out, personal histories, background investigations, reference checks, home visits, etc.

Can you show me a form that says "please check or state your sexual behaviors" to a prospective single parent adopter?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Never been through an adoption have you? I have.

There are forms to fill out, personal histories, background investigations, reference checks, home visits, etc.

Can you show me a form that says "please check or state your sexual behaviors" to a prospective single parent adopter?

It's right next to the notice that says "This state allows only men and women in a marriage to adopt." You know, since the state can't allow single heterosexual or single homosexuals to adopt because only men and women can raise a child because both role models (according to your study) must be present.

The point is that is that 49 of 50 states DO allow single homosexuals to adopt and many states allow single-sex couples to adopt.

>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

Never been through an adoption have you? I have.

There are forms to fill out, personal histories, background investigations, reference checks, home visits, etc.

Can you show me a form that says "please check or state your sexual behaviors" to a prospective single parent adopter?

It's right next to the notice that says "This state allows only men and women in a marriage to adopt." You know, since the state can't allow single heterosexual or single homosexuals to adopt because only men and women can raise a child because both role models (according to your study) must be present.

The point is that is that 49 of 50 states DO allow single homosexuals to adopt and many states allow single-sex couples to adopt.

>>>>

Silhouette has no clue about any of the many things she posts about.

She posts about kids- but is not a parent, and has no clue what parents do.
She posts about adoption- but has never adopted, was not adopted, and clearly has no clue as to the process.

Back to my earlier post:

First of all, let us presume for a moment that what you claim is true(I don't agree that it is, but let us presume it is).

a) The largest population of children not being raised by both a mother and a father are the children of single parents. IF the concern is regarding children not being raised in an 'optimal environment' what are the actions being taken to help those children?

b) Gay couples are having children. That is just a fact. What do you propose to do about those children? Like the children being raised by single parents- they exist- and can't be ignored. And unlike the children being raised by single parents, these children are being raised in a 2 parent home, which will translate to more economic and food security for the child.

c) Preventing gay marriage does not prevent gay couples from having children- it only prevents those children from having married parents. How do you think that preventing same gender marriage would help these children?

I welcome a rational discussion on the issues.

But I know that will not be coming from you.

 

[Silhouette]

The point is that is that 49 of 50 states DO allow single homosexuals to adopt and many states allow single-sex couples to adopt.

Before or after the lawmakers there read the Prince's Trust survey? And in light of the fact that heteros at least are still reaching out to members of the opposite gender "as mattering"? Adoption is unfortunate for the child no matter how you measure it up. As it turns out, unfortunate adoptions are not on par with marriage. Though, the best situation even for adopted children would be to allow the states consensuses to decide which environment best to incentivize for the sake of children. And, accoring to Prince's Trust, it's mother/father; always, unless an entire state gets together and says differently.

If saying so differently is a big mistake (and it is IMHO), that decision must be made with the widest weigh-in possible and not left up to just five people to make on behalf of 100s of millions and into generations untold..