Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren't to Blame: They Rely on "Science"..

[Silhouette]

What lying BS. Gay couples have children regardless of marriage. Gay couples who marry may or may not have children. All that your efforts to discriminate against gay couples in marriage would accomplish is to ensure that the children of gay couples do not have married parents.
Which is why you don't give a damn about children.

Single parents have children regardless of marriage. Shall they gain rights to marry themselves in order for their poor kids to qualify for the benefits of marriage?

Gay couples guarantee the state that the children in their homes will be without one blood parent, 100% of the time. Gay couples also guarantee the state that the opposite gender adult "as role model" for the children will be missing 100% of the time. Childless hetero couples do not defy a construct which incentivizes both blood parents of children being in the home: the best scenario psychologically for any child. Single parent's children do not have married parents. Children in gay homes do not have mothers and fathers. They have one or the other, just like the children of single parents..and all are at a disadvantage. Except the children of man/wife homes.

I actually do give a damn about children, so much so that I feel this attack on their fundamental right to both their natural parents can have huge and horrible consequences far into the future for untold numbers of them, vs the comparatively paltry numbers today of some kids caught up in gay lifestyles or with single parents.

Even if those kids numbered in the millions, you don't take a bad thing and make it better by normalizing the wrong! We have the future as well as the present to consider in this question. And the numbers for potential harm to kids is collosal in the future tense compared to the present tense.

 

[Syriusly]

What lying BS. Gay couples have children regardless of marriage. Gay couples who marry may or may not have children. All that your efforts to discriminate against gay couples in marriage would accomplish is to ensure that the children of gay couples do not have married parents.
Which is why you don't give a damn about children.

Single parents have children regardless of marriage. Shall they gain rights to marry themselves in order for their poor kids to qualify for the benefits of marriage?.

Silhouette- what benefits do you imagine that a single mom would gain by marrying herself?

Frankly if you can show me that allowing single mom's to marry themselves would provide distinct advantages for their children, then i would be all for it.

 

[Syriusly]

[
I actually do give a damn about children, so much so that I feel this attack on their fundamental right to both their natural parents

What fundamental right to both their natural parents?

Seriously how do you make this crap up?

I certainly think it would be great for kids to be raised by their natural parents.

But clearly there is no 'right'- since we allow heterosexual parents to abandon their natural children. We even take children away from their biological parents.

And we allow straight parents to use sperm donation to get pregnant- and there is no right for those children to be raised by their biological parents.

Again- you make this fictional 'right' that is ignored when it comes to straight couples- married or unmarried- and apply it only to same gender couples- regardless of whether they have children.

All your are doing is arguing that gay parents of children should be discriminated against so that their children cannot have married parents.

Gay marriage doesn't harm children- and in so much that children is a benefit to children, gay marriage would help the children of gay parents, and would not harm any other children.

 

[JoeB131]

Gay couples guarantee the state that the children in their homes will be without one blood parent, 100% of the time. Gay couples also guarantee the state that the opposite gender adult "as role model" for the children will be missing 100% of the time. Childless hetero couples do not defy a construct which incentivizes both blood parents of children being in the home: the best scenario psychologically for any child. Single parent's children do not have married parents. Children in gay homes do not have mothers and fathers. They have one or the other, just like the children of single parents..and all are at a disadvantage. Except the children of man/wife homes.

shit, now he's talking about "Blood" like that's a relevant factor to anything here.

Here's the thing, if you never tell an adopted child he's adopted, they never notice the difference.

We have a shitload of kids who get adopted from China by white people because they let their biological clocks run down. Most of them are just fine.

 

[JoeB131]

Anyone notice that Sil gets more shrill on days the Courts strike down another anti-gay law?

 

[Silhouette]

Anyone notice that Sil gets more shrill on days the Courts strike down another anti-gay law?

No more or less shrill than your ilk after you lose ground. But hey, it's just a battle anyway. The war is still on. Maddow was right. This is properly a culture war. It has nothing to do with race or "civil rights". It has everything to do with behaviors and values..

There are two sides to this debate. Your side and mine. Like any contested event or issue, there will be cheering and jeering depending on where the ball is at on the playing field at any given moment.

You state with smoke and mirrors that the contest is over. I state the opposite. I say it has just begun. And carrying the sport analogy a little further...I knew a jockey once and his winning strategy over and again was to hold his good mount back in the crowd or even lagging behind at a nice hand gallop and then in the last furlong he applied the whip like no other to cross the line first by a nose. While the other horses had burned their wick out by the end and didn't have any more go, his just just started waking up and took the lead like it was nothing. Worked for him time and again.

You will see this soon.

 

[Syriusly]

Anyone notice that Sil gets more shrill on days the Courts strike down another anti-gay law?

No more or less shrill than your ilk after you lose ground. But hey, it's just a battle anyway. The war is still on. Maddow was right. This is properly a culture war. It has nothing to do with race or "civil rights". It has everything to do with behaviors and values..

There are two sides to this debate. Your side and mine. Like any contested event or issue, there will be cheering and jeering depending on where the ball is at on the playing field at any given moment.

You state with smoke and mirrors that the contest is over. I state the opposite. I say it has just begun. And carrying the sport analogy a little further...I knew a jockey once and his winning strategy over and again was to hold his good mount back in the crowd or even lagging behind at a nice hand gallop and then in the last furlong he applied the whip like no other to cross the line first by a nose. While the other horses had burned their wick out by the end and didn't have any more go, his just just started waking up and took the lead like it was nothing. Worked for him time and again.

You will see this soon.

Actually there are three sides.

The side for marriage equality
The side against marriage equality
And you- which the side against marriage equality keeps trying to avoid.

 

[JoeB131]

No more or less shrill than your ilk after you lose ground. But hey, it's just a battle anyway. The war is still on. Maddow was right. This is properly a culture war. It has nothing to do with race or "civil rights". It has everything to do with behaviors and values..

It is a culture war. One culture is based on religious superstition and sexual fear. The other is based on real freedom and science. And our culture is winning.

There are two sides to this debate. Your side and mine. Like any contested event or issue, there will be cheering and jeering depending on where the ball is at on the playing field at any given moment.

No, guy, you see, what's going to happen is AFTER your side has lost, most of you will pretend like you were never against it to start with.

You see, the ball isn't moving in your direction, not even one little bit. The courts have struck down gay marriage bans in 32 states. Now you guys are reduced to, "Please, please, please don't make me bake a cake with two plastic dudes on top!"

 

[Silhouette]

Actually there are three sides.

The side for marriage equality
The side against marriage equality
And you- which the side against marriage equality keeps trying to avoid.

Right, you would prefer I sling a slew if profanities at gays instead of lucid debate and points and links and excerpts from studies?

I'll bet you'd prefer that. Makes the sympathy play and manipulation of Justices so much easier..

Yes, this is about psychology all right..

 

[Syriusly]

Actually there are three sides.

The side for marriage equality
The side against marriage equality
And you- which the side against marriage equality keeps trying to avoid.

Right, you would prefer I sling a slew if profanities at gays instead of lucid debate and points and links and excerpts from studies?

I'll bet you'd prefer that. Makes the sympathy play and manipulation of Justices so much easier..

Yes, this is about psychology all right..

You have never posted lucid debate.

 

[Silhouette]

You have never posted lucid debate.

Would you call this gibberish then? If so, what does that say about you? And by extension, your stance?

Of course I know what you're up to. If you can confine the good points below under a reverse-demonizing sweeping blanket of insults you are free (you believe) to not address them point by point and offer a lucid rebuttal of your own. You are demonstrating quite nicely for readers here, the defense-mechanisms typical of those in denial, how they spin attempts to make inroads into "you're just a mean jerk attacking me"...to avoid answering point by point those investigations into unsavory phenomenon your ilk is painfully displaying for all eyes that see.

They hold entire courses (or rather, pre-CQR they did) about late stage denial and how therapists must be very prudent, delicate and agile in teasing deep-seated issues from the subconscoius of their patients. In fact, the measure of how good a therapist used to be was the degree to which s/he was adept at doing this. They knew if they did not proceed this way, they'd run into precisely the steel-jaw trap you keep clamping down on the conversation. Y'all removed your own "approve gay marriage" initiative from the Ohio ballot because of your deep-seated fear that your own beliefs (that a "clear and healthy majority" now support gay marriage) would be completely exposed as wrong. ie: your leaders knew or strongly suspected the initative would fail at the ballot box. And your denial systems (and cult morale) could not sustain such a blow.

But just pick up any old Psyche 101 tome and all this stuff will be in there. Pretty elementary.

The lesbian parents of an 11-year-old boy who is undergoing the process of becoming a girl last night defended the decision, claiming it was better for a child to have a sex change when young....Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy...At age seven, after threatening genital mutilation on himself, psychiatrists diagnosed Thomas with gender identity disorder. By the age of eight, he began transitioning. ...The hormone-suppressant, implanted in his upper left arm, will postpone the 11-year-old developing broad shoulders, deep voice and facial hair. The California boy 11 who is undergoing hormone blocking treatment Daily Mail Online

~Just after his first 6 formative years, this boy raised by two lesbians suddenly wants to femalize himself by genital mutilation. "Gender identity disorder" could also be called "my gender doesn't matter disorder."

~Future children and their rights to both blood parents in their home, instead of state-incentivized "marriages" where one of them is missing 100% of the time, like single motherhood. This isn't about how gay marriage harms your marriage. It's about how gay marriage harms children. But you already know that. You're using one of the thousands of ways your ilk employs to disrupt the focus of the points made.

~Gay marriage harms children. It deprives them of one of their blood parents 100% of the time. It provides a complete vacuum of modeling and experience with the opposite gender missing in the home. This can be detrimental to a child's mental formation:

~The weight of children caught up in gay lifestyles not receiving the benefits of marriage is miniscule in comparison to the untold 100s of millions who would be affected far into the future generations by removing state's rights to set standards of marriage in the best interest of the most important people in it: CHILDREN/OUR FUTURE LEADERS...

 

[Syriusly]

You have never posted lucid debate.

Would you call this gibberish then? ..

Yep- gibberish.

Any other easy questions?

 

[Silhouette]

Yep- gibberish.

Any other easy questions?

Speak to my points. If you don't, you are afraid of them. Something about them scares you. If you had good rebuttals to them, you'd lay them out. But you don't, because you don't have any. And that scares you.

 

[Syriusly]

Yep- gibberish.

Any other easy questions?

Speak to my points. If you don't, you are afraid of them. Something about them scares you. If you had good rebuttals to them, you'd lay them out. But you don't, because you don't have any. And that scares you.

Your 'points' are gibberish

~Just after his first 6 formative years, this boy raised by two lesbians suddenly wants to femalize himself by genital mutilation. "Gender identity disorder" could also be called "my gender doesn't matter disorder."

Anectdote- and as I have shown- children with gender disorder occur in families with heterosexuals also- gibberish.

~Future children and their rights to both blood parents in their home, instead of state-incentivized "marriages" where one of them is missing 100% of the time, like single motherhood. This isn't about how gay marriage harms your marriage. It's about how gay marriage harms children. But you already know that. You're using one of the thousands of ways your ilk employs to disrupt the focus of the points made.

Gibberish- gay marriage doesn't harm any children

Gay marriage harms children. It deprives them of one of their blood parents 100% of the time.

Gibberish

~The weight of children caught up in gay lifestyles not receiving the benefits of marriage is miniscule in comparison to the untold 100s of millions who would be affected far into the future generations by removing state's rights to set standards of marriage in the best interest of the most important people in it: CHILDREN/OUR FUTURE LEADERS...

Hysteric Gibberish

There is no evidence that children raised by homosexual parents do any better- or any worse than other children. Preventing same gender marriage will not prevent same gender couples from having children- nor help children raised by opposite gender couples.

Just homophobic bigoted gibberish.

 

[Silhouette]

Your 'points' are gibberish

~Just after his first 6 formative years, this boy raised by two lesbians suddenly wants to femalize himself by genital mutilation. "Gender identity disorder" could also be called "my gender doesn't matter disorder."

Anectdote- and as I have shown- children with gender disorder occur in families with heterosexuals also- gibberish.

I will take the only point you answered. The rest you just said "are gibberish", which shows your fear of them and inability to counter with lucid points.

As to the one point you did answer, a child can grow to hate his gender in any type of home. Yet in a homosexually-parented home, that propensity would rise astronomically. Imagine as a child and the first 6 years of life, your formative years, seeing in your primary environment ONLY one gender represented "as adults"...in a very young child's mind "as the entire world"..so your view of the entire world is just that one gender as mattering or significant. And you see that as "society-stamped normal" (marriage). It is the incentivized institutionalized-maladjusted environment quintessential, whereas in some dysfunctional hetero marriages that might occur randomly as its imperfections in individual cases present themselves. It isn't insitutionalized, it's "random-unfortunateness"..and seen and presented as not acceptable for those children. Attempts would be made to change that environment for their welfare.

So if that child of "gay parents" happens to be of the same gender, it's probably pretty cool, if even they grow up stunted as to the opposite gender and how to relate to them. But if that child happens to be of the opposite gender, we can predict that would be murderous to their self esteem and view of their own importance in the world in general.

Like I said, I lived around gays aplenty when near the Bay Area. Without exception, every single lesbian I ever met was down on men, usually became that way because of a negative experience with men (the lipstick ones for sure...while they still sought out all the trappings of "male" in their butch partner, ironically...). Their negative comments and affects towards men/males seeped out of their pores 24/7. Imagine being a boy raised in that home. Well...this perfectly normal and happy looking lesbian couple (follow the link for pictures), turned out a boy who felt so insignificant, so "not-mattering"...that he tried to mutilate his junk at age 7...what do you know...just at the end of his formative years when his reasoning started to take over..

The lesbian parents of an 11-year-old boy who is undergoing the process of becoming a girl last night defended the decision, claiming it was better for a child to have a sex change when young....Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy...At age seven, after threatening genital mutilation on himself, psychiatrists diagnosed Thomas with gender identity disorder. By the age of eight, he began transitioning. ...The hormone-suppressant, implanted in his upper left arm, will postpone the 11-year-old developing broad shoulders, deep voice and facial hair. The California boy 11 who is undergoing hormone blocking treatment Daily Mail Online

Just after his first 6 formative years, this boy raised by two lesbians suddenly wants to femalize himself by genital mutilation. "Gender identity disorder" could also be called "my gender doesn't matter disorder". And like I said, the APA isn't interested in doing a survey of children on a couch of their deep reasons for hating or rejecting their own gender. The results might interfere with prefabricated conclusions a la the neo-gay CQR method of rejecting facts in favor of audited group-think at the American Psychological Association (see OP links for details).

We cannot have pesky facts and common sense getting in the way of LGBT-approved "pre-conclusions" at the APA!

 

[Silhouette]

"gibberish"..."hysteric gibberish"..."homophobic gibberish" all do not qualify as pointed rebuttals to what I said. When you get out of your fear-cage and want to tackle the points head-on, let me know "Syriusly"..

 

[JoeB131]

"gibberish"..."hysteric gibberish"..."homophobic gibberish" all do not qualify as pointed rebuttals to what I said. When you get out of your fear-cage and want to tackle the points head-on, let me know "Syriusly"..

Guy, it's kind of hard to reason with someone whose entirely life is built on irrational hate because his imaginary childhood friend got the gays.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren't to Blame: They Rely on "Science"..'

This is idiocy.

There is no such thing as a 'gay-activist judge,' this is a moronic contrivance on the part of the social right hostile to gay Americans' civil liberties.

 

[Silhouette]

'Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren't to Blame: They Rely on "Science"..'

This is idiocy.

There is no such thing as a 'gay-activist judge,' this is a moronic contrivance on the part of the social right hostile to gay Americans' civil liberties.

Nice mantra there sport. Have any comments on CQR from the OP? What do you think about the American Psychological Association adopting practices where data is discarded for audited-group-think? How different from the way a cult operates is the concept of "audited group think"?

Please be specific as you can in your answers. (I'll await numerous attempts at diversion and then repost the question on the next page)

 

[Silhouette]

Guy, it's kind of hard to reason with someone whose entirely life is built on irrational hate because his imaginary childhood friend got the gays.

He "got the gays" by being molested, remember? You keep skating over the top of that crucial detail. He died of AIDS and took hundreds with him, in essence, because of untreated sexual assault wounds and deep repressed anger/self-loathing over who had had become and why..

Your solution would be to tell him to "embrace what you have become, celebrate it!". And that is like throwing rock salt in his wounds...