US Supreme Court to Meet This Week To Decide To Take Up Gay Marriage Debate/Case

[Skylar]

Well with two dads they will be twice as good eh?

Nope, the article says that missing a mom for a girl means she'll likely be depressed & wind up a problem drinker...and will feel a sense of not belonging..

Not in gay and lesbian households she won't.

"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," she tells WebMD. "In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures.....

...."Some studies showed that single heterosexual parents' children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex," Perrin says. "They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school."

Kids Of Same-Sex Parents Do Fine - CBS News

Clearly having that second parent there makes all the difference.

 

[Silhouette]

Clearly having that second parent there makes all the difference.

The article's focus was not on the number "one"...it was on "role models of the same gender as the kids". Read it again.

Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

With no father to look to as he grew up, Arfan Naseer fell into a life of drugs and gangs...He even spent time in prison after becoming involved with the wrong crowd, impressed by their expensive cars and gangster lifestyle...He believes that if he had had a father or male role model to look up to, he would have seen the error of his ways at a much earlier age.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's over Sil, how long do you plan to continue beating your tiny homophobic mind against the wall?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

A homosexual household is just twice the number of the same gender. Twice the income security. Twice the potential number of parents to attend parent teacher conferences, be there when the kids come home from school.

.

While we're doing math, a homosexual household is also zero times the complimentary gender vital as a role model.

...just like single parent households (monosexuals)

And since both offer the same "balanced psychological environment" for kids in their formative years, why are all those tens of millions of kids in single parent homes currently under "immediate legal harm" from their parent not receiving the benefits of marriage?

A man and another man who acts like a woman does not a mother/father make.

 

[Silhouette]

It's over Sil, how long do you plan to continue beating your tiny homophobic mind against the wall?

You have a thing with verbal abuse. Must be the cult you belong to. They accuse other people's valid cordial opinions against gay marriage and the harm it causes kids as "homophobic, bullish, vile, hating etc. etc. etc." Meanwhile they feel free to bash on others all day long. You have no substantive rebuttal to the article in my last post. I get it. It makes you mad so you have to beat someone up and call names. Hardly a behavior either that should be around kids.

 

[Montrovant]

It's over Sil, how long do you plan to continue beating your tiny homophobic mind against the wall?

You have a thing with verbal abuse. Must be the cult you belong to. They accuse other people's valid cordial opinions against gay marriage and the harm it causes kids as "homophobic, bullish, vile, hating etc. etc. etc." Meanwhile they feel free to bash on others all day long. You have no substantive rebuttal to the article in my last post. I get it. It makes you mad so you have to beat someone up and call names. Hardly a behavior either that should be around kids.

The article makes no mention of homosexual parents. It is based on a survey of 25 year olds and is about having positive role models. Without seeing the details, it could easily be that some of the respondents had parents of both genders but that they were not considered 'positive' role models. It could be that there was not a single homosexual parented child in the survey and that every single instance of a lack of same sex parent was based on a single parent household. There is also mention of an older sibling being an acceptable positive role model, so if a homosexual couple have multiple children, at least one might have the same sex role model you so vehemently promote. Also, I would imagine, an aunt/uncle or older cousin, a nanny, maybe even a close friend could be that same gender positive role model.

So while you use this article as evidence of your point, it does not seem to actually conform to what you've been saying.

Nor does the article show causality. In fact, it gives no mention at all of the effects other factors may have had on the lives of the people involved.

All in all, not particularly compelling.

 

[Syriusly]

Every time you make crap up like this it is more and more apparent that you are not- and have never been a parent.

Really- you have no idea about parenting- you have no concept of what children do or do not need.

Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online
]

Every time you make crap up like this it is more and more apparent that you are not- and have never been a parent.

Really- you have no idea about parenting- you have no concept of what children do or do not need

That has nothing to do with gay marriage- or parenting by a single parent versus parenting by two parents of the same gender.

As a parent- I can say that all other things being equal- it will be tougher for a single parent to raise a child than than for two parents to raise the child.

You want to ensure that the children being raised by gay parents cannot have married parents.

I think those children deserve married parents.

 

[Syriusly]

A homosexual household is just twice the number of the same gender. Twice the income security. Twice the potential number of parents to attend parent teacher conferences, be there when the kids come home from school.

.

While we're doing math, a homosexual household is also zero times the complimentary gender vital as a role model.

...just like single parent households (monosexuals)

And since both offer the same "balanced psychological environment" for kids in their formative years, why are all those tens of millions of kids in single parent homes currently under "immediate legal harm" from their parent not receiving the benefits of marriage?

A man and another man who acts like a woman does not a mother/father make.

People who commit to raising children- and being their parents for the rest of their lives and then do so- whether their own biological children, or the ones discarded by heterosexuals, are indeed parents.

 

[Syriusly]

Statistically, "Same sex marriage" means a hard life for the kids involved...

The article doesn't even mention marriage.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

A homosexual household is just twice the number of the same gender. Twice the income security. Twice the potential number of parents to attend parent teacher conferences, be there when the kids come home from school.

.

While we're doing math, a homosexual household is also zero times the complimentary gender vital as a role model.

...just like single parent households (monosexuals)

And since both offer the same "balanced psychological environment" for kids in their formative years, why are all those tens of millions of kids in single parent homes currently under "immediate legal harm" from their parent not receiving the benefits of marriage?

A man and another man who acts like a woman does not a mother/father make.

People who commit to raising children- and being their parents for the rest of their lives and then do so- whether their own biological children, or the ones discarded by heterosexuals, are indeed parents.

Which says nothing. It's still about immoral people deliberately creating an environment that deprives a child of a mother or a father as differentiated from such deprivation being an unfortunate vicissitude of life. It's the difference between a child losing a leg in a tragic accident and somebody sawing off his leg so he can be as broken as they are. It's sick and evil.

 

[Syriusly]

A homosexual household is just twice the number of the same gender. Twice the income security. Twice the potential number of parents to attend parent teacher conferences, be there when the kids come home from school.

.

While we're doing math, a homosexual household is also zero times the complimentary gender vital as a role model.

...just like single parent households (monosexuals)

And since both offer the same "balanced psychological environment" for kids in their formative years, why are all those tens of millions of kids in single parent homes currently under "immediate legal harm" from their parent not receiving the benefits of marriage?

A man and another man who acts like a woman does not a mother/father make.

People who commit to raising children- and being their parents for the rest of their lives and then do so- whether their own biological children, or the ones discarded by heterosexuals, are indeed parents.

Which says nothing. It's still about immoral people deliberately creating an environment that deprives a child of a mother or a father as differentiated from such deprivation being an unfortunate vicissitude of life. It's the difference between a child losing a leg in a tragic accident and somebody sawing off his leg so he can be as broken as they are. It's sick and evil.

Ah typical- switch subjects now.

You don't think that homosexuals can be good parents- as a parent, I say that is BS.
I have seen enough crappy straight parents in my life to know that sexual orientation of the parents is one of the least important parenting aspects.

And if I knew enough gay parents, eventually I would see crappy gay parents also- being straight or gay doesn't make a person a perfect parent by default- but we do know that gay parents choose to be parents- unlike many of my hetero brethren who are shocked to find out that intercourse can lead to unexpected pregnancies.

What I do find sick and evil is the bigotry by folks like yourself- who would prefer that the children of gay parents not have married parents- just to screw over homosexuals.

What I do find sick and evil is the bigotry of folks like yourself- who would prefer that children abandoned by their own parents and waiting for years to be adopted- should languish in foster care rather than be adopted by a caring couple that happens to be gay.

What I do find sick and evil is the bigotry of folks like yourself- who would prefer that children in foster care and available for adoption, age out of the system to be abandoned by the State- rather than let them be adopted by a homosexual couple who want to support those children financially and emotionally for the rest of their lives.

All just to screw over homosexuals.

Sick and Evil.

 

[Silhouette]

..What I do find sick and evil is the bigotry of folks like yourself- who would prefer that children in foster care and available for adoption, age out of the system to be abandoned by the State- rather than let them be adopted by a homosexual couple who want to support those children financially and emotionally for the rest of their lives. All just to screw over homosexuals. Sick and Evil.

It's not the motivation Syriusly...although your drama does tend to strum at the old heartstrings..

Yes, poor poor homosexuals just minding their own business, forcing millions of people to promote their lifestyles by a few corrupt judges ever fearful of the "rainbow-backlash" should they dare to find otherwise...forcing christians to bake cakes and do flower arrangements that will get them eternity in the pit for cooperating with...poor poor gays...they just aren't taking over society fast enough! It needs to be FASTER!! And anyone who disagrees is automatically tarred and feathered without preamble..

It's about why states incentivize marriage at all. It is merely and simply to entice that type of formative environment best for kids. And that environment is indisputably man/woman father/mother grandfather/grandmother. Single parents, gays, wolves, polygamists have all been known to raise kids. But the environment the state wants to entice is man/woman. Windsor 2013 Affirms that this has always been their right.


I see St. Mike is back trying to help you get another thread locked and "disappeared" from a manufactured flame-war.. How much do they pay you guys over in San Francisco there to do this type of internet work?

Where were we...Oh, yes..

Clearly having that second parent there makes all the difference.

The article's focus was not on the number "one"...it was on "role models of the same gender as the kids". Read it again.

Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

With no father to look to as he grew up, Arfan Naseer fell into a life of drugs and gangs...He even spent time in prison after becoming involved with the wrong crowd, impressed by their expensive cars and gangster lifestyle...He believes that if he had had a father or male role model to look up to, he would have seen the error of his ways at a much earlier age.

 

[Syriusly]

..What I do find sick and evil is the bigotry of folks like yourself- who would prefer that children in foster care and available for adoption, age out of the system to be abandoned by the State- rather than let them be adopted by a homosexual couple who want to support those children financially and emotionally for the rest of their lives. All just to screw over homosexuals. Sick and Evil.

It's not the motivation Syriusly..]

Oh it is absolutely your motivation.

You use the issue of children just as a tool to attack homosexuals.

 

[Montrovant]

..What I do find sick and evil is the bigotry of folks like yourself- who would prefer that children in foster care and available for adoption, age out of the system to be abandoned by the State- rather than let them be adopted by a homosexual couple who want to support those children financially and emotionally for the rest of their lives. All just to screw over homosexuals. Sick and Evil.

It's not the motivation Syriusly...although your drama does tend to strum at the old heartstrings..

Yes, poor poor homosexuals just minding their own business, forcing millions of people to promote their lifestyles by a few corrupt judges ever fearful of the "rainbow-backlash" should they dare to find otherwise...forcing christians to bake cakes and do flower arrangements that will get them eternity in the pit for cooperating with...poor poor gays...they just aren't taking over society fast enough! It needs to be FASTER!! And anyone who disagrees is automatically tarred and feathered without preamble..

It's about why states incentivize marriage at all. It is merely and simply to entice that type of formative environment best for kids. And that environment is indisputably man/woman father/mother grandfather/grandmother. Single parents, gays, wolves, polygamists have all been known to raise kids. But the environment the state wants to entice is man/woman. Windsor 2013 Affirms that this has always been their right.


I see St. Mike is back trying to help you get another thread locked and "disappeared" from a manufactured flame-war.. How much do they pay you guys over in San Francisco there to do this type of internet work?

Where were we...Oh, yes..

Clearly having that second parent there makes all the difference.

The article's focus was not on the number "one"...it was on "role models of the same gender as the kids". Read it again.

Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

With no father to look to as he grew up, Arfan Naseer fell into a life of drugs and gangs...He even spent time in prison after becoming involved with the wrong crowd, impressed by their expensive cars and gangster lifestyle...He believes that if he had had a father or male role model to look up to, he would have seen the error of his ways at a much earlier age.

That may not have been the focus of the article, but that could well have been the reality of those who took the survey. In fact, I am confident that if this is a random survey, the vast majority of those who grew up without the complementary gender role model you continue to harp on about did not grow up in a homosexual parent household. Not only is that still an uncommon arrangement, it was likely more uncommon when the 25-year-olds in question were growing up. So, while you can keep posting that link as though it makes your point for you, unless you can show causality between the lack of a particular gendered role model and the statistics involved, you are not presenting a very good argument.

The survey doesn't even say these statistics are based on children without a same gender role model, but rather without a 'positive' same gender role model. That sounds as though they could well have been raised in a 2 opposite gender parents household and simply had a parent who was a poor role model. In fact, the article vacillates between saying no positive role model and no role model at all; I find it hard to give credence to the article when it cannot even remain consistent.

So you have an article based on a survey which says nothing about the specifics of the survey questions or answers, which does not mention anything about homosexual parents, which does not even attempt to show causality, and which in fact seems little more than an opinion piece based on the limited data available (assuming it is not an opinion piece based on the bias of the author which ignores the data available). Yet here you are, posting it multiple times as though it provides some sort of definitive proof of your beliefs.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh it is absolutely your motivation.

You use the issue of children just as a tool to attack homosexuals.

At least I'm not gyrating and dry humping naked in front of them at organized gay pride parades down main street. The only people using children are those who deny they are the most important consideration in who the state incentivizes to promote the best formative environment for them in marriage. You're saying "let's just make them our guinea pigs and see if all those studies showing they need both genders as role models are really true". I'm saying, "let's follow what we know is true about the best formative environment for kids and do that and nothing else".

 

[Skylar]

Clearly having that second parent there makes all the difference.

The article's focus was not on the number "one"...it was on "role models of the same gender as the kids". Read it again.

Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

With no father to look to as he grew up, Arfan Naseer fell into a life of drugs and gangs...He even spent time in prison after becoming involved with the wrong crowd, impressed by their expensive cars and gangster lifestyle...He believes that if he had had a father or male role model to look up to, he would have seen the error of his ways at a much earlier age.

Two problems.

First, the study you cited doesn't differentiate between single parent households and 2 parent households. Either scenario doesn't work well for your argument. If its overwhelmingly single parent households, then the study can't tell us which effects are caused by a child being raised by a single parent or a child being raised without a 'role model'. If the study is a mix of single and two parent households, then your premise of a two parent household producing the kind of rolemodels you advocate is shattered. As two parent households don't necessarily produce them.

Either renders your assumptions either unsupported, or invalid.

Second, there are numerous studies that demonstrate that same sex households produce mentally healthy children. And studies that demonstrate that same sex households do a better job of raising healthy children than single parent households. These are explicit contradicts of your assumptions. As they demonstrate that in the case of same sex households, the results are healthy children. Not the bad outcomes described in your 'role model' study.

"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," she tells WebMD. "In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures.....

...."Some studies showed that single heterosexual parents' children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex," Perrin says. "They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school."

Demonstrating that the basis of your assumptions are invalid OR the children or same sex couples are an exception. Either of which undermines your argument.

 

[Silhouette]

Two problems.
First, the study you cited doesn't differentiate between single parent households and 2 parent households....
..Second, there are numerous studies that demonstrate that same sex households produce mentally healthy children. And studies that demonstrate that same sex households do a better job of raising healthy children than single parent households. These are explicit contradicts of your assumptions. As they demonstrate that in the case of same sex households, the results are healthy children. Not the bad outcomes described in your 'role model' study.

The study is about role models, not numbers. The vital complimentary gender is missing. It's the gender the child has and finds lacking in their formative environment. Single parent households are preferable to kids roaming the streets as orphans. It doesn't mean the single parent gets the benefits of marriage, does it? Well, at least not until "anything goes" marriage becomes a federally-forced right.. Monosexuals' children are as in danger of "immediate legal harm" as any other without the benefits of marriage.

Don't start preaching to me about the sacred number of "two" as "traditional". If you do, I'll start preaching to you about how man/woman is traditional...and the most healthy for kids' self-esteem...

 

[Montrovant]

Two problems.
First, the study you cited doesn't differentiate between single parent households and 2 parent households....
..Second, there are numerous studies that demonstrate that same sex households produce mentally healthy children. And studies that demonstrate that same sex households do a better job of raising healthy children than single parent households. These are explicit contradicts of your assumptions. As they demonstrate that in the case of same sex households, the results are healthy children. Not the bad outcomes described in your 'role model' study.

The study is about role models, not numbers. The vital complimentary gender is missing. It's the gender the child has and finds lacking in their formative environment. Single parent households are preferable to kids roaming the streets as orphans. It doesn't mean the single parent gets the benefits of marriage, does it? Well, at least not until "anything goes" marriage becomes a federally-forced right.. Monosexuals' children are as in danger of "immediate legal harm" as any other without the benefits of marriage.

Don't start preaching to me about the sacred number of "two" as "traditional". If you do, I'll start preaching to you about how man/woman is traditional...and the most healthy for kids' self-esteem...

You continue to ignore the fact that the survey, according to the article, is not simply about missing role models, but missing 'positive' role models, which means that there could well be children raised by heterosexual couples that the survey included in their statistics of children harmed by lack of positive same gender role models.

You continue to misuse the word monosexual.

Whether two or two hundred, marriage is a union. There cannot be a marriage without multiple participants. It's akin to saying someone is doing something together with themselves.

Your argument would be more compelling if you didn't keep obviously making things up in an attempt to strengthen it.

 

[Skylar]

Two problems.
First, the study you cited doesn't differentiate between single parent households and 2 parent households....
..Second, there are numerous studies that demonstrate that same sex households produce mentally healthy children. And studies that demonstrate that same sex households do a better job of raising healthy children than single parent households. These are explicit contradicts of your assumptions. As they demonstrate that in the case of same sex households, the results are healthy children. Not the bad outcomes described in your 'role model' study.

The study is about role models, not numbers.

Exactly. It doesn't differentiate between the negative effects of single parenthood and those of a 'lack of a role model'. Worse, it doesn't tell us how many two gender families produced children with out a suitable role model. As the standard in the study was a 'good role model'. Not simply a role model.

In either case, your conclusions regarding same sex parents run into trouble. If the study is predominately single parents, then we don't now much of the negative effects are about role models and how much are about single parenting. And if it involves predominantly two parent hetoersexual families, then it negatives your claims regarding the benefits of a two gender household.

And of course, there are studies of same sex parents *specifically*, that indicate no harm to children.

"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," she tells WebMD. "In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures.....

...."Some studies showed that single heterosexual parents' children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex," Perrin says. "They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school."

Making your entire point moot. As the negative effects you assume doesn't appear in same sex households. Yet you ignore every such study showing this, without exception.

A rational person wouldn't.

The vital complimentary gender is missing. It's the gender the child has and finds lacking in their formative environment. Single parent households are preferable to kids roaming the streets as orphans. It doesn't mean the single parent gets the benefits of marriage, does it? Well, at least not until "anything goes" marriage becomes a federally-forced right.. Monosexuals' children are as in danger of "immediate legal harm" as any other without the benefits of marriage.

Again, you're ignoring the studies that have demonstrated conclusively that the harm you assume doesn't happen in same sex households. That same sex households do a better job of raising children than single parents. And do as well as hetero couples. Study after study has shown this.

And a 'monosexual' is someone who is sexually attracted to only one gender. Any heterosexual or homosexual is a 'monosexual'. That you've made up a new definition doesn't change the fact that one already exists.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

..What I do find sick and evil is the bigotry of folks like yourself- who would prefer that children in foster care and available for adoption, age out of the system to be abandoned by the State- rather than let them be adopted by a homosexual couple who want to support those children financially and emotionally for the rest of their lives. All just to screw over homosexuals. Sick and Evil.

It's not the motivation Syriusly..]

Oh it is absolutely your motivation.

You use the issue of children just as a tool to attack homosexuals.

I think it's in the best interest of children to be kept as far away from you people as possible. Growing up is hard enough without being exposed to a crazy world where perverted is promoted as normal and acceptable. The very fact you people covet our children to proselytize them into your sick little world gives me the creeps.