States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage

[Silhouette]

The state doesn't "insure" (sic), it entices. States want to dangle a goody out there to entice the minimal number possible of children born to single people or to be in homes where either their mother or father are not present. And the reason states entice people this way is for the state's fiscal interest. States know statistically (not in each and every single case, but predominanty) that children grow up best and into the most well-rounded adult and productive citizens if they are raised in a home with both their mother and father present. Boys need a dad. Girls need a mom. It's all in the Prince's Trust link in the OP.

So a state throwing money breaks to a gay couple gets nothing but its own assured fiscal doom, statistically-speaking. You will counter with rare exceptions to the rule but the state when weighing its future finances is not going to be interested in looking at rare exceptions. It will do its calculations off of the preponderance of fact, not the rare exceptions to it.
So a state therefore has a direct, manifest and concrete interest in being able to regulate marriage so that its enticements do not have to be "legally forced" (by the fed) to go to fiscal pissing in the wind.

And that's just the emotionless fiscal argument. The psychological-stunting issue of kids raised in gay homes is an issue also of a state mandate in order to 1. Protect children from an anticipated harm (a thing they are required by federal law to do) and 2. To keep getting federal CAPTA money for insuring that children do not come to predictable and foreseeable harm.

There is nothing I can think of that is more damaging to a child than to live the daily example and message to them that "not only do you not have a mom (or dad), but that there is never ever even the remotest hope that you will ever have one: we are going to make sure of that." ....by the very structure of their relationship. Adults are free to have their sexual kinks. Only they cannot force a child-protecting state to play along to the absolute predictable psychological harm to children..

One of the number 1 issues of boys raised without a father or girls without a mother is indigency when they become young adults. And this rises from esteem issues of not seeing "themselves" represented in the daily adult world they grew up in. If they figure they don't matter, then applying for a job doesn't matter because who would hire a third wheel? etc. Imagine a boy raised in a lesbian home. How much do you think he would internalize "mattering in the functioning adult world" by the time he was 25?

There is a conflict, a direct conflict between the federal CAPTA guidelines and the mandate of "gay marriage" across the 50 states. It's right in the OP. Even a half wit lawyer could read the fine print and have a case.There is no more venom towards gays in this secular argument of why they don't qualify as parents than there is towards blind people as to why they don't qualify to drive. Gays by their very physical structure harm children "as parents". Blind people by their very physical structure are a danger to others "as drivers".

Your rare exceptions to the boys need a dad and girls need a mom statistical rule does not change the rule. It''s a plain and also instinctive fact. Instead of being "done here"...we're just gearing up. The safety and psychological wellbeing of children is not "some little collateral issue" you're going to be allowed to just sweep under the foetid rainbow rug...as your litigious steam roller crushes everything in its path

You better hope that states don't have a legally valid way to deny gay marriage. Seeing as no mentally healthy man would put his penis inside you, gay marriage and beastiality are your only hopes of not dying lonely.

You get the award for "most vitroloic diversion when lacking a substantive rebuttal". I'll put your post in my "hall of fame"..lol..

 

[Syriusly]

If you truly can think of nothing more damaging to a child than to be raised by gay parents, you are a sick individual with no imagination. Gay parents are more damaging than drunk or drug abusing parents? More damaging than physically abusive parents? More damaging than sexually abusive parents? More damaging than having no parents? On and on and on, there are so many things that could be more damaging to a child, even if one were to assume being raised by gay parents caused issues like in your beloved Prince's Trust Youth Index. But you cannot acknowledge anything worse because it might soften your anti-gay rhetoric.

Boys raised without fathers and girls without mothers statistically feel a lack of self worth, a lack of belonging, indigency, alcohol and drug abuse; even suicidal tendencies as young adults. For a state, this is not where one want to invest one's tax incentives. It is madness to require states to incentivize their own financial doom with tax breaks for deviants who stunt children raised in their home; whom you can set your watch by will STATISTICALLY become burdens to the state.

You have yet to prove any of that.

Meanwhile- the vast majority of boys or girls raised without a father or mother are boys or girls abandoned by one of their parents and being raised by the responsible single parent.

Thanks for telling them that the single mom and dad that they are shitty parents.

 

[Syriusly]

I hope that answered your question Patriot?

You didn't answer any of his questions- I am glad to repeat them- i will even number them so you can respond to the numbered question

1. Do you advocate the removal by force of law of all children currently in the care of gay individuals and couples so that they can be placed with a "mother and a father"?
2. Do you have any credible evidence in the form of peer reviewed research that shows that children who do not have both a biological mother and a father become stunted and dysfunctional adults?
3. How, exactly would prohibiting same sex marriage ensure that all-or most children will have both a mother and a father?

Can you actually answer his questions?

I doubt it.

 

[danielpalos]

Why does the right Only complain about less fortunate "moochers" who "drain" our resources with frivolous litigation.

 

[Silhouette]

Who is on the right daniel-disrupt-a-thread-with-non-sequiturs? I'm a registered democrat.

This isn't an opportunity to introduce strawmen spammer-Syriusly. This is a discussion of how ANY boy missing his father and ANY girl missing her mother comes to predictable psychological harm. You can make it a narcissistic insult/injury towards yourself, or you can just look at it from a kid's angle. A child needs the best shot at life. I would hope we'd both agree on that point. You're insisting that "to not insult or hurt the feelings of people doing gay stuff, we need to pretend that this arrangement "as married" doesn't hurt kids". Yet we do not agree on that point. Neither does the Prince's trust survey linked in the OP here.

 

[Syriusly]

If you truly can think of nothing more damaging to a child than to be raised by gay parents, you are a sick individual with no imagination. Gay parents are more damaging than drunk or drug abusing parents? More damaging than physically abusive parents? More damaging than sexually abusive parents? More damaging than having no parents? On and on and on, there are so many things that could be more damaging to a child, even if one were to assume being raised by gay parents caused issues like in your beloved Prince's Trust Youth Index. But you cannot acknowledge anything worse because it might soften your anti-gay rhetoric.

If you will read my last post, states aren't in the business of doing fiscal projections off of exceptions to the rules. They follow statistical trends. I warned that you would give your rare exceptions as "arguments that the rule must be changed" But they are falling on deaf ears.

Boys raised without fathers and girls without mothers statistically feel a lack of self worth, a lack of belonging, indigency, alcohol and drug abuse; even suicidal tendencies as young adults. For a state, this is not where one want to invest one's tax incentives. It is madness to require states to incentivize their own financial doom with tax breaks for deviants who stunt children raised in their home; whom you can set your watch by will STATISTICALLY become burdens to the state.

That has nothing to do with Montrovants post you responded to.

He- and I - took you to task for your ridiculous claim that you could think of "nothing more damaging to a child than to be raised by gay parents"

Really?

Nothing?

Not all of the children sexually molested by their own father or step father? You don't think that might be more damaging?

How about the children who are beaten and burned and scarred by their own mother or father? You don't think that might be more damaging?

How about the child being raised by a junkie single mom who is too stoned out to even keep her child fed- or who pimps out her own child?

Or how about the child abandoned by both of his or her biological parents and left with no parents at all?

No- the worst you think you can' think of is a child having gay parents.

That is because the time you pretend to care about children is when you do so to attack homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

Who is on the right daniel disrupt-a-thread with non sequiturs?

This isn't an opportunity to introduce strawmen spammer-Syriusly. This is a discussion of how ANY boy missing his father and ANY girl missing her mother comes to predictable psychological harm.

Prove it.

Simple enough prove it. We know that the Prince's Study does no such thing- so if you quote the Prince's Study again we will know that you are just lying- again.

Beyond that denying gay couples marriage does nothing to ensure that children will be raised by two opposite gender parents- not one thing.

Denying gay couples marriage only ensures that any children that they raise, will be raised by unmarried parents, and therefore suffer the legal harm that Justice Kennedy mentioned repeatedly.

Preventing gay people from marrying does not benefit a single child- it only harms children.

And those are the facts.

 

[Syriusly]

Who is on the right daniel-disrupt-a-thread-with-non-sequiturs? I'm a registered democrat.

This isn't an opportunity to introduce strawmen spammer-Syriusly. This is a discussion of how ANY boy missing his father and ANY girl missing her mother comes to predictable psychological harm. You can make it a narcissistic insult/injury towards yourself, or you can just look at it from a kid's angle. A child needs the best shot at life. I would hope we'd both agree on that point. You're insisting that "to not insult or hurt the feelings of people doing gay stuff, we need to pretend that this arrangement "as married" doesn't hurt kids". Yet we do not agree on that point. Neither does the Prince's trust survey linked in the OP here.

You didn't answer any of his questions- I am glad to repeat them- i will even number them so you can respond to the numbered question

1. Do you advocate the removal by force of law of all children currently in the care of gay individuals and couples so that they can be placed with a "mother and a father"?
2. Do you have any credible evidence in the form of peer reviewed research that shows that children who do not have both a biological mother and a father become stunted and dysfunctional adults?
3. How, exactly would prohibiting same sex marriage ensure that all-or most children will have both a mother and a father?

Can you actually answer his questions?

I doubt it.

 

[Silhouette]

Rare exceptions do not make a rule. States must plan fiscally for a preponderence of statistical data; not the rare exceptions to it. The Prince's Trust survey found that in some 65% or greater in some cases, boys raised without a father and girls raised without a mother become indigent burdens to the state.

Gay marriage strips boys of fathers and girls of mothers absolutely unwaveringly 50% of the time. We are talking statistics, not rare exceptions to the rule. So, states have a valid reason to reject gay marraige. A very good, solid and financial one. They must only incenitivize those situations which produce the least amount of fiscal burden to the state. Otherwise, states should remove all tax breaks for married people if they're not going to get anything out of the deal.

 

[Syriusly]

Rare exceptions do not make a rule. States must plan fiscally for a preponderence of statistical data; not the rare exceptions to it. The Prince's Trust survey found that in some 65% or greater in some cases, boys raised without a father and girls raised without a mother become indigent burdens to the state.

Gay marriage strips boys of fathers and girls of mothers absolutely unwaveringly 50% of the time. We are talking statistics, not rare exceptions to the rule. So, states have a valid reason to reject gay marraige. A very good, solid and financial one. They must only incenitivize those situations which produce the least amount of fiscal burden to the state. Otherwise, states should remove all tax breaks for married people if they're not going to get anything out of the deal.

Prove it.

Simple enough prove it. We know that the Prince's Study does no such thing- so if you quote the Prince's Study again we will know that you are just lying- again.

Beyond that denying gay couples marriage does nothing to ensure that children will be raised by two opposite gender parents- not one thing.

Denying gay couples marriage only ensures that any children that they raise, will be raised by unmarried parents, and therefore suffer the legal harm that Justice Kennedy mentioned repeatedly.

Preventing gay people from marrying does not benefit a single child- it only harms children.

And those are the facts.

 

[Montrovant]

Rare exceptions do not make a rule. States must plan fiscally for a preponderence of statistical data; not the rare exceptions to it. The Prince's Trust survey found that in some 65% or greater in some cases, boys raised without a father and girls raised without a mother become indigent burdens to the state.

Gay marriage strips boys of fathers and girls of mothers absolutely unwaveringly 50% of the time. We are talking statistics, not rare exceptions to the rule. So, states have a valid reason to reject gay marraige. A very good, solid and financial one. They must only incenitivize those situations which produce the least amount of fiscal burden to the state. Otherwise, states should remove all tax breaks for married people if they're not going to get anything out of the deal.

Why don't you quote the Prince's Trust survey where it says that "in some 65% or greater in some cases, boys raised without a father and girls raised without a mother become indigent burdens to the state.". I've read that survey multiple times, I in fact have it open in another tab right now, and I don't see that anywhere in the survey.

Obviously you've lied about the Prince's Trust for years now, in fact I don't know that I've ever seen you write a true statement about it. Still, you've given a specific number of 65%. That number is not used in the 2011 Index (the one which discusses positive same gender role models) to describe a percentage of youths who become indigent burdens to the state. It is the overall wellness number for youths without a positive same gender role model....a number which is actually higher than those not in education, employment, or training as well as being higher than those who don't score well on GCSEs (a form of academic qualification used in the UK).

Go on Silhouette . Show us where the Index says what you claim. I dare you.

 

[Syriusly]

Rare exceptions do not make a rule. States must plan fiscally for a preponderence of statistical data; not the rare exceptions to it. The Prince's Trust survey found that in some 65% or greater in some cases, boys raised without a father and girls raised without a mother become indigent burdens to the state.

Gay marriage strips boys of fathers and girls of mothers absolutely unwaveringly 50% of the time. We are talking statistics, not rare exceptions to the rule. So, states have a valid reason to reject gay marraige. A very good, solid and financial one. They must only incenitivize those situations which produce the least amount of fiscal burden to the state. Otherwise, states should remove all tax breaks for married people if they're not going to get anything out of the deal.

You didn't answer any of his questions- I am glad to repeat them- i will even number them so you can respond to the numbered question

1. Do you advocate the removal by force of law of all children currently in the care of gay individuals and couples so that they can be placed with a "mother and a father"?
2. Do you have any credible evidence in the form of peer reviewed research that shows that children who do not have both a biological mother and a father become stunted and dysfunctional adults?
3. How, exactly would prohibiting same sex marriage ensure that all-or most children will have both a mother and a father?

Can you actually answer his questions?

I doubt it.

 

[danielpalos]

Who is on the right daniel-disrupt-a-thread-with-non-sequiturs? I'm a registered democrat.

This isn't an opportunity to introduce strawmen spammer-Syriusly. This is a discussion of how ANY boy missing his father and ANY girl missing her mother comes to predictable psychological harm. You can make it a narcissistic insult/injury towards yourself, or you can just look at it from a kid's angle. A child needs the best shot at life. I would hope we'd both agree on that point. You're insisting that "to not insult or hurt the feelings of people doing gay stuff, we need to pretend that this arrangement "as married" doesn't hurt kids". Yet we do not agree on that point. Neither does the Prince's trust survey linked in the OP here.

dear, there is no appeal to ignorance of our form of socialism nor the concept of equality before the law.

And,

dearest,

a King Leonidas study always outranks a Princes' Trust survey.

 

[Silhouette]

Rare exceptions do not make a rule. States must plan fiscally for a preponderence of statistical data; not the rare exceptions to it. The Prince's Trust survey found that in some 65% or greater in some cases, boys raised without a father and girls raised without a mother become indigent burdens to the state.

Gay marriage strips boys of fathers and girls of mothers absolutely unwaveringly 50% of the time. We are talking statistics, not rare exceptions to the rule. So, states have a valid reason to reject gay marraige. A very good, solid and financial one. They must only incenitivize those situations which produce the least amount of fiscal burden to the state. Otherwise, states should remove all tax breaks for married people if they're not going to get anything out of the deal.

Obviously you've lied about the Prince's Trust for years now, in fact I don't know that I've ever seen you write a true statement about it. Still, you've given a specific number of 65%. That number is not used in the 2011 Index (the one which discusses positive same gender role models) to describe a percentage of youths who become indigent burdens to the state. It is the overall wellness number for youths without a positive same gender role model....

Thanks for that basic summation of the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind: Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Tell you what, we'll let state lawyers look over the survey and see if it contains any relevence to states being able to reject "gay marriage" for fiscal reasons and for reasons of CAPTA funding and insuring the psychological wellbeing of children within each state's borders, OK? We'll let the lawyers parse out the little details and come to their conclusions. They will use logic to sway the court, and past case law about child endangerment; so be prepared...just sayin'...

 

[Montrovant]

If you truly can think of nothing more damaging to a child than to be raised by gay parents, you are a sick individual with no imagination. Gay parents are more damaging than drunk or drug abusing parents? More damaging than physically abusive parents? More damaging than sexually abusive parents? More damaging than having no parents? On and on and on, there are so many things that could be more damaging to a child, even if one were to assume being raised by gay parents caused issues like in your beloved Prince's Trust Youth Index. But you cannot acknowledge anything worse because it might soften your anti-gay rhetoric.

If you will read my last post, states aren't in the business of doing fiscal projections off of exceptions to the rules. They follow statistical trends. I warned that you would give your rare exceptions as "arguments that the rule must be changed" But they are falling on deaf ears.

Boys raised without fathers and girls without mothers statistically feel a lack of self worth, a lack of belonging, indigency, alcohol and drug abuse; even suicidal tendencies as young adults. For a state, this is not where one want to invest one's tax incentives. It is madness to require states to incentivize their own financial doom with tax breaks for deviants who stunt children raised in their home; whom you can set your watch by will STATISTICALLY become burdens to the state.

Your grasp of statistics seems about on par with your grasp of the law; that is to say, incredibly weak. Even ignoring the lies you spout regularly about the Index, you misrepresent the survey in that those youths without a positive role model experience negative effects more frequently than those with a positive role model, but not exclusively. In other words, any youth has a statistical chance to feel a lack of self worth, lack of belonging, etc. It is higher among those without a positive role model, but your posts imply that not having a mother or father makes such things a near certainty.

 

[Syriusly]

Rare exceptions do not make a rule. States must plan fiscally for a preponderence of statistical data; not the rare exceptions to it. The Prince's Trust survey found that in some 65% or greater in some cases, boys raised without a father and girls raised without a mother become indigent burdens to the state.

Gay marriage strips boys of fathers and girls of mothers absolutely unwaveringly 50% of the time. We are talking statistics, not rare exceptions to the rule. So, states have a valid reason to reject gay marraige. A very good, solid and financial one. They must only incenitivize those situations which produce the least amount of fiscal burden to the state. Otherwise, states should remove all tax breaks for married people if they're not going to get anything out of the deal.

Obviously you've lied about the Prince's Trust for years now, in fact I don't know that I've ever seen you write a true statement about it. Still, you've given a specific number of 65%. That number is not used in the 2011 Index (the one which discusses positive same gender role models) to describe a percentage of youths who become indigent burdens to the state. It is the overall wellness number for youths without a positive same gender role model....

Thanks for that basic summation of the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind: Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Tell you what, we'll let state lawyers look over the survey and see if it contains any relevence to states being able to reject "gay marriage" for fiscal reasons and for reasons of CAPTA funding and insuring the psychological wellbeing of children within each state's borders, OK? We'll let the lawyers parse out the little details and come to their conclusions. They will use logic to sway the court, and past case law about child endangerment; so be prepared...just sayin'...

You predicted the Supreme Court would refer to the Prince's study- and of course they didn't.

No lawyers will because the Prince's Study doesn't say anything about gay marriage at all. Or about parenting.

You just lie about the Prince's Study- like you lie about most everything.

 

[Debra K]

In California, for example:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 2.5. A voter who casts a vote in an election in accordance
with the laws of this State shall have that vote counted.

and

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 8. (a) The initiative is the power of the electors to propose
statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject
them.

Those powers were erroneously removed...

SEC. 10. (a) An initiative statute or referendum approved by a
majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election
unless the measure provides otherwise. If a referendum petition is
filed against a part of a statute the remainder shall not be delayed
from going into effect.

The only way the referendum can be revoked:

SEC. 10.
(c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It
may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that
becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the
initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their
approval.

The power of the People in the Golden State is absolute. And that power was just wrongly removed June, 2015. There is only fluff behind the SCOTUS decision and no Constitutional meat or backbone if push came to shove. And I suggest that it does. Removing voting power is such an awful precedent to set..

Under your boneheaded theory, the majority of the voters may pass laws or amend state constitutions to take away rights of the minority. If our country was a pure democracy, you would be correct. But, we all know you are wrong. We are not a nation of men (pure democracy) ... we are a nation of laws (constitutional republic) ... and the supreme law of the land is that a state may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor equal protection under the law.

You proclaim, "States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage". That's the same boneheaded attitude that bigots had to evade the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. They were wrong. No matter how ingeniously or ingenuously people tried to evade the Court's interpretation of Constitution, they failed.

 

[Montrovant]

Rare exceptions do not make a rule. States must plan fiscally for a preponderence of statistical data; not the rare exceptions to it. The Prince's Trust survey found that in some 65% or greater in some cases, boys raised without a father and girls raised without a mother become indigent burdens to the state.

Gay marriage strips boys of fathers and girls of mothers absolutely unwaveringly 50% of the time. We are talking statistics, not rare exceptions to the rule. So, states have a valid reason to reject gay marraige. A very good, solid and financial one. They must only incenitivize those situations which produce the least amount of fiscal burden to the state. Otherwise, states should remove all tax breaks for married people if they're not going to get anything out of the deal.

Obviously you've lied about the Prince's Trust for years now, in fact I don't know that I've ever seen you write a true statement about it. Still, you've given a specific number of 65%. That number is not used in the 2011 Index (the one which discusses positive same gender role models) to describe a percentage of youths who become indigent burdens to the state. It is the overall wellness number for youths without a positive same gender role model....

Thanks for that basic summation of the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind: Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Tell you what, we'll let state lawyers look over the survey and see if it contains any relevence to states being able to reject "gay marriage" for fiscal reasons and for reasons of CAPTA funding and insuring the psychological wellbeing of children within each state's borders, OK? We'll let the lawyers parse out the little details and come to their conclusions. They will use logic to sway the court, and past case law about child endangerment; so be prepared...just sayin'...

In other words, no, you cannot show where the survey says what you claim. That's because it does not. Your deflection to silly fictions about state lawyers in no way hides your inability to back up your claims.

 

[Silhouette]

Under your boneheaded theory, the majority of the voters may pass laws or amend state constitutions to take away rights of the minority. If our country was a pure democracy, you would be correct. But, we all know you are wrong. We are not a nation of men (pure democracy) ... we are a nation of laws (constitutional republic) ... and the supreme law of the land is that a state may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor equal protection under the law.

All right. Fair enough. So would you say that there are zero exceptions to that rule? That every single living breathing person in the US has those same protections from tyrannical rule? That not one single person should have to bear the yoke of oppression of their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Would that right extend to US children? or are they your singular exception to protection from the tyranny of laws? A boy's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges his father to stay in his married home. Statisically-speaking (refer to Prince's Trust in OP). A girl's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges her mother to stay in her married home. But they don't count, right? Then suddenly "tyranny of law overrules an oppressed class of US citizens".

Hypocrite. It is apparent that the only laws you promote "in the moment" are the ones that advance the LGBT cult into the fold of mainstream society...everything be damned..including children's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as their unquestioned right (see federal CAPTA guidelines) to protection from harm by society when society has reason to believe a situation would harm them.

 

[Montrovant]

Under your boneheaded theory, the majority of the voters may pass laws or amend state constitutions to take away rights of the minority. If our country was a pure democracy, you would be correct. But, we all know you are wrong. We are not a nation of men (pure democracy) ... we are a nation of laws (constitutional republic) ... and the supreme law of the land is that a state may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor equal protection under the law.

All right. Fair enough. So would you say that there are zero exceptions to that rule? That every single living breathing person in the US has those same protections from tyrannical rule? That not one single person should have to bear the yoke of oppression of their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Would that right extend to US children? or are they your singular exception to protection from the tyranny of laws? A boy's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges his father to stay in his married home. Statisically-speaking (refer to Prince's Trust in OP). A girl's pursuit of happiness would be a society that urges her mother to stay in her married home. But they don't count, right? Then suddenly "tyranny of law overrules an oppressed class of US citizens".

Hypocrite. It is apparent that the only laws you promote "in the moment" are the ones that advance the LGBT cult into the fold of mainstream society...everything be damned..including children's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as their unquestioned right (see federal CAPTA guidelines) to protection from harm by society when society has reason to believe a situation would harm them.

Could you at least use a survey that uses US children when you are discussing US constitutional protections?

One thing you continuously fail to grasp : society does not seem to agree with you about the harm caused by children raised by gay couples.