Idea For New Constitutional Amendment: "The Child Consideration Amendment"

[paddymurphy]

The children argument has been the one most substantial argument against legal homo marriage. It is exactly why the homonazi agenda avoided it and focused on religion instead. Now it's time for the children argument to be made.

Here are parts of the testimony of the expert called by those defendign prop 8 in california:

“The studies show that adoptive parents, because of the rigorous screening process that they undertake before becoming adoptive parents, actually on some outcomes outstrip the biological parents in terms of providing protective care for their children.”

“Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion.”

“I believe that adopting same-sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children.”

“By increasing the number of married couples who might be interested in adoption and foster care, same-sex marriage might well lead to fewer children growing up in state institutions and more growing up in loving adoptive and foster families.”

“Because marriage is a wealth-creating institution, extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably increase wealth accumulation and lead to higher living standards for these couples as well as help reduce welfare costs (by promoting family economic self-sufficiency) and decrease economic inequality.”

“Gay marriage might contribute over time to a decline in anti-gay prejudice as well as, more specifically, a reduction in anti-gay hate crimes.”

“Same-sex marriage would likely contribute to more stability and to longer-lasting relationships for committed same-sex couples.”

“Gay marriage would extend a wide range of the natural and practical benefits of marriage to many lesbian and gay couples and their children.”

“Extending the right to marry to same-sex couples would probably mean that a higher proportion of gays and lesbians would choose to enter into committed relationships.”
There is your "its all about the children" evidence from your side. This guy was honest. You? Clearly not.

The unstructured family problems transcend economics. I live in a region with a median income of $73k and a predominance of unstructured families. We have the second worst schools and second highest crime rate.
You are still relying on the anecdotal and anomalous.
Again, the argument regarding the prevalence of unstructured families has not been made. The closest thing to it is a semantic interpretation of adoption rights.
Not to mention the rudeness and cruelty of contriving family situations where a child is intentionally denied the opportunity to the very natural, innate right to be raised by his actual parents.

You know, getting out the thesaurus to use big words does not hide your stupidity. The testimony in Court in these case was not anecdotal. It was based on data studied by those who study the family dynamic. In many gay households, one of the parents is the natural parent. The other natural parent is often times a test tube. You seem to think that biology makes a parent. Biology can create the child, but a parent involves more than simply sharing DNA. Spend a week in family or juvenile court and observe the wonderful parenting skills of straight Americans. The children that gay couples adopt are not fucking stolen. They have been discarded by the straight couples that created them. Or, maybe they are the children of children who understand that being 16 and pregnant is a lot different than that idiotic TV show. When they are adopted, they become wanted. When there are two loving parent ready to take one of these discarded children into their home, to raise them as if they were their biological children and to give them the love that someone like you would simply be incapable of giving them, why should hate prevent that from happening?

Again, you went gutter and anecdotal. Respond to my points about entire communities lacking family structure and then demonstrate how homo contrivance adoptions don't contribute to that.

Why would I respond to shit you make up? Gay marriage provides a family structure that hateful pricks like you claim to be so necessary. You have offered no data, not even any anecdotes. Just your bigoted opinions.

Here is non-anecdotal evidence:

"Children of same-sex couples fare better when it comes to physical health and social well-being than children in the general population, according to researchers at the University of Melbourne in Australia.

“It’s often suggested that children with same-sex parents have poorer outcomes because they’re missing a parent of a particular sex. But research my colleagues and I published in the journal BMC Public Health shows this isn’t the case,” lead researcher Simon Crouch wrote on the Conversation.

Crouch and his team surveyed 315 same-sex parents with a total of 500 children across Australia. About 80 percent of the kids had female parents and about 18 percent had male parents, the study states.

Children from same-sex families scored about 6 percent higher on general health and family cohesion, even when controlling for socio-demographic factors such as parents’ education and household income, Crouch wrote. However, on most health measures, including emotional behavior and physical functioning, there was no difference compared with children from the general population."

Here is some more:
"In a project launched last month, a team I direct at Columbia Law School has collected on one website the abstracts of all peer-reviewed studies that have addressed this question since 1980 so that anyone can examine the research directly, and not rely on talking heads or potential groupthink. Even when we might not agree with a study’s conclusions—with how a researcher interpreted the data—we still included it if it went through peer review and was relevant to the topic at hand. Peer review, of course, isn’t perfect, but it’s one of the best ways the world has to ensure that research conclusions are at least the product of good-faith efforts to get at the truth.

The Columbia project is the largest collection of peer-reviewed scholarship on gay parenting to date. What does it show? We found 71 studies concluding that kids with gay parents fare no worse than others and only four concluding that they had problems. But those four studies all suffered from the same gross limitation: The children with gay parents were lumped in with children of family breakup, a cohort known to face higher risks linked to the trauma of family dissolution.

Scalia’s sociological “disagreement” is entirely manufactured. As our collection makes clear, and as the American Sociological Association concluded in its 2013 brief to the Supreme Court, the consensus of serious scholars on the matter is overwhelming. And the handful of researchers purporting to show harms from gay parenting are not brave Galileo-like outliers speaking truth to groupthink; they are ideological opponents of gay equality who are part of an orchestrated campaign to influence the Supreme Court with scare stories and bogus scholarship. Its backers seek to discredit genuine research with deceptive talking points and to make sweeping anti-gay claims that their own flawed research simply does not support. Indeed, Scalia (no friend of gays himself, of course) appears to have fallen for their stunts hook, line, and sinker."

I could go on, but you get the point. Now, other than some asshole from Texas paid by gay marriage opponents and with intrinsically flawed data that caused his peer to reject his conclusions, what do you have to prove you repeated assertions? If you only have you repeating the same bullshit, go away.

 

[paddymurphy]

This is from the Brief of the State of Michigan explaining their argument:

2. The state’s primary interest in defining marriage as between opposite-sex couples is to encourage individuals with the inherent capacity to bear children to enter a union that supports child rearing. Michigan’s marriage laws have nothing to do with animus toward anyone, and it would take a radical alteration of this Court’s constitutional doctrines to hold that the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage.

4.a. Michigan’s marriage laws satisfy rational-basis review. The petitioners concede that Michigan pursues a legitimate interest and reasonably promotes that interest by acknowledging that marriage brings stability to families and promotes positive child outcomes. Pet. Br. 22, 37. The fact that Michigan’s marriage definition may be under- or overinclusive is no ground to invalidate it. It is not Michigan’s burden to prove that excluding a group will promote a law’s purpose. To the contrary, when “the inclusion of one group promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of other groups would not, we cannot say that the statute’s classification of beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries is invidiously discriminatory.” Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 383 (1974). Responding to the reality that a man and a woman are generally able to create new life neither discriminates nor entails animus at all.

So, tell us again how the argument that gay marriage is not good for children was not made to the Court.

There is no mention there of the direct correlation between the prevalence of unstructured (non-mom-and-dad) families and social demise.

Cause there is none.

Only to those who are insulated from the reality.

Your head is to far up you ass to have any familiarity with reality.

Another defeated lefty goes gutter. Why am I not surprised. Can't deal with hate facts, eh?

Defeated? Why is that when you right wing morons get schooled and realize it, you leave the debate claiming victory. Every point you have made, from your false claim that the states defended their laws in Oberfell based on religion; to your false claim that no court ever considered evidence of the effect of gay marriage on the family structure to your claim that I was only offering anecdotal evidence, has been thoroughly destroyed. Not be me spouting my opinions and responding to your points by saying, "Nuh UH", which is the level of your debate. No. I produced the briefs of the states defending their laws; I produced the words of the anti-gay marriage expert and I produced links to studies as to the effect of gay parents on children. What, again, did you offer?

 

[Syriusly]

The need is that all children should be protected but the Cult of Si is only a few children should be protected while ignoring all of the rest. Her amendment will not remedy the problem.

"Her". This hatemongering asshole is a woman? Perhaps even a mother? God that is awful. How could a woman be so hateful towards children; to want to take them from their parents because she objects to their orientation?

The only parents to a child are a mother and father...

Say you. Yet the gay parents of these children abandoned by their biological mothers and fathers show otherwise

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

There is no mention there of the direct correlation between the prevalence of unstructured (non-mom-and-dad) families and social demise.

Cause there is none.

Only to those who are insulated from the reality.

Your head is to far up you ass to have any familiarity with reality.

Another defeated lefty goes gutter. Why am I not surprised. Can't deal with hate facts, eh?

Defeated? Why is that when you right wing morons get schooled and realize it, you leave the debate claiming victory. Every point you have made, from your false claim that the states defended their laws in Oberfell based on religion; to your false claim that no court ever considered evidence of the effect of gay marriage on the family structure to your claim that I was only offering anecdotal evidence, has been thoroughly destroyed. Not be me spouting my opinions and responding to your points by saying, "Nuh UH", which is the level of your debate. No. I produced the briefs of the states defending their laws; I produced the words of the anti-gay marriage expert and I produced links to studies as to the effect of gay parents on children. What, again, did you offer?

Every failing jurisdiction in this country has the same prevalence of unstructured families. It transcends money. Doesn't get much more empirical than that.

 

[Syriusly]

Read the Obergefell ruling. It addresses children head on.

You've already lost this argument too.

Give me a link, I'll read it and shoot it down.

Typically lazy right winger. Engages in a debate about a topic without ever bothering to educate himself on it. You will need to read more than the ruling; you will need to read the transcripts of the more than dozen trials where there was actual evidence presented. In none of those cases could your side present credible evidence that having gay parents had any detrimental effect on kids. Frankly, the only harm is that they run the risk of being exposed to hateful pricks like you who would take their hatred of gay people out of their children.

I'm fully aware of the decision. It made no point about the prevalence of fatherlessness and how homo marriage could only exacerbate that problem. You need to educate yourself, lazy.

You asked for a link. Have you read is since then? The prevalence of fatherlessness would be reduced by children adopted by two men. If one father is good, two would be great. It is so apparent from your posts that your wife had the good sense to take your kids as far away from you as possible. Right?

Two fathers would leave a child devoid of a mother. It's both genders that need to be represented.
Why must you go gutter when you're presented with an argument you can't refute?

Two fathers would be twice as many parents as a single father.

Millions of children are raised by single mothers and single fathers- yet most of us- maybe not you- don't want to take those children away from their single parent.

Two parents are twice the economic and social stability as one parent.

 

[Syriusly]

Cause there is none.

Only to those who are insulated from the reality.

Your head is to far up you ass to have any familiarity with reality.

Another defeated lefty goes gutter. Why am I not surprised. Can't deal with hate facts, eh?

Defeated? Why is that when you right wing morons get schooled and realize it, you leave the debate claiming victory. Every point you have made, from your false claim that the states defended their laws in Oberfell based on religion; to your false claim that no court ever considered evidence of the effect of gay marriage on the family structure to your claim that I was only offering anecdotal evidence, has been thoroughly destroyed. Not be me spouting my opinions and responding to your points by saying, "Nuh UH", which is the level of your debate. No. I produced the briefs of the states defending their laws; I produced the words of the anti-gay marriage expert and I produced links to studies as to the effect of gay parents on children. What, again, did you offer?

Every failing jurisdiction in this country has the same prevalence of unstructured families. It transcends money. Doesn't get much more empirical than that.

Interesting that you equate single parent families- or no parent families- with a family with 2 parents- who happen to be gay.

You don't even see that your argument is self defeating- because your examples are 'unstructured families'- and a family with 2 married parents is structured. You should be arguing in favor of such a family rather than the family being raised by the single dad- straight or gay.

 

[Silhouette]

Two fathers would be twice as many parents as a single father.

Millions of children are raised by single mothers and single fathers- yet most of us- maybe not you- don't want to take those children away from their single parent.

Two parents are twice the economic and social stability as one parent.

Then you are for legalizing polygamy marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

Two fathers would be twice as many parents as a single father.

Millions of children are raised by single mothers and single fathers- yet most of us- maybe not you- don't want to take those children away from their single parent.

Two parents are twice the economic and social stability as one parent.

Then you are for legalizing polygamy marriage?

That is your straw man

Two fathers would be twice as many parents as a single father.

Millions of children are raised by single mothers and single fathers- yet most of us- maybe not you- don't want to take those children away from their single parent.

Two parents are twice the economic and social stability as one parent.

 

[Silhouette]

Two fathers would be twice as many parents as a single father....Millions of children are raised by single mothers and single fathers- yet most of us- maybe not you- don't want to take those children away from their single parent....Two parents are twice the economic and social stability as one parent.

Then you are for legalizing polygamy marriage?

That is your straw man...Two fathers would be twice as many parents as a single father...Millions of children are raised by single mothers and single fathers- yet most of us- maybe not you- don't want to take those children away from their single parent.
Two parents are twice the economic and social stability as one parent.

A man and seven wives would be eight times as many parents as a single parent. And they would be eight times the economic and social stability as one parent.

So, you're argument IS IN FACT "more is better than one" "as married parents". So I'll ask again, you're in favor of polygamy marriage?

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, serial spammer thread troll Syriusly? Where are yooooou?

 

[Silhouette]

...Why is that when you right wing morons get schooled and realize it, you leave the debate claiming victory. Every point you have made, from your false claim that the states defended their laws in Oberfell based on religion; to your false claim that no court ever considered evidence of the effect of gay marriage on the family structure to your claim that I was only offering anecdotal evidence, has been thoroughly destroyed. Not be me spouting my opinions and responding to your points by saying, "Nuh UH", which is the level of your debate. No. I produced the briefs of the states defending their laws; I produced the words of the anti-gay marriage expert and I produced links to studies as to the effect of gay parents on children. What, again, did you offer?

1. I'm a democrat. Voted for Obama twice, Clinton twice etc.

2. If you don't fear the points I've raised, why protest them so vigorously? Same goes for your assessment that they are "thoroughly destroyed".

3. The thorough destruction (the actual one) of the nuclear family with a father and mother is not "anecdotal". A boy needing a father and a girl needing a mother is not "anecdotal". It's supported by one of the largest studies of its kind: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“The Fag Militia”

This is an example of the ignorance and hate common to most on the social right, illustrating the continued need of our Constitution and its case law to safeguard citizens’ civil rights from this sort of ignorance and hate.

 

[Silhouette]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“The Fag Militia”

This is an example of the ignorance and hate common to most on the social right, illustrating the continued need of our Constitution and its case law to safeguard citizens’ civil rights from this sort of ignorance and hate.

That's a nice strawman. But what does it have to do with children and their rights? Do you believe that children fare better with two men or a father and a mother?

(and no strawmen about how "some hetero marriages are abusive"...etc. etc...because pound for pound two gay men have at least the same propensity towards child abuse as a hetero couple does)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What's the choice between a gay couple raising children vs. a childhood in foster care?

That is not the question. A child in foster care should be protected by the law from being handed over to a couple of sodomites. This is about Parents and their children and changing the constitution to transfer rights of the parent over to rights of the Child.

So Jeremiah- you want to prevent these children from being fostered or adopted by these men?

The couple contacted Credo Care, an organisation that specialises in disability foster placements. Shortly after, Armand arrived.

"He arrived in March, 10 years ago," explains David. Born in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, six-year-old Armand had lived in hospital for most of his short life. A wheelchair user, he has severe learning disabilities, a tracheotomy and is fed through a Peg [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy].

"He came to us when he was six and was the first one to arrive. Four months later, we had an emergency phone call, asking us if we'd take a boy from Derby. Luke arrived that afternoon. He was 12 and had Duchenne muscular dystrophy. In those days he could shuffle around, but now, he's totally … well, the disease has got hold of his body. He's 22 now. He's a great lad, he really is. He's brilliant."

A couple of months after Luke joined the household, the couple were asked to take Steven, who was five and had cerebral palsy and learning difficulties. They have looked after the three boys ever since. Two years ago, they adopted a little girl. Sadly, she wasn't well and didn't live long.

"We had 17 wonderful months," says David. "She was three when she died. It was just 10 days after the adoption was completed, and it was very sudden, so … we haven't gone down that road again," he adds, choosing his words carefully to describe what must have been a devastating experience.

The latest addition to the household arrived earlier this year. Three-year-old Emma is immobile, has limited vision and breathes via a tracheotomy, but appears to be thriving in their care.

"She's making huge progress," says Andrew. "She was in a place in Surrey, where she had lots of different people working with her. She couldn't make connections with people. Now she just has two voices that she hears all the time – the same people caring for her. And we have the luxury of spending time with her."

Talking to David and Andrew, I am struck by how matter-of-factly they talk about their family setup. They clearly derive great joy and reward from their role as carers, speaking about each child with affection and deep pride. To an unexperienced outsider, the idea of caring full-time for a child with severe learning difficulties – who may not be expected to live until adulthood – probably falls into the category of every parent's worst nightmare. However, the couple are a testament to the fact that it doesn't have to be regarded that way.

Gay foster carers I love every minute of it Life and style The Guardian

Yes.

He would prefer to see them in an institution where he does not have to be bothered with imperfect creations of God.

Better to be alone with God then in the wrong company.

And here we see the ignorance, hatred, and arrogance common to many Christians.

 

[Syriusly]

...Why is that when you right wing morons get schooled and realize it, you leave the debate claiming victory. Every point you have made, from your false claim that the states defended their laws in Oberfell based on religion; to your false claim that no court ever considered evidence of the effect of gay marriage on the family structure to your claim that I was only offering anecdotal evidence, has been thoroughly destroyed. Not be me spouting my opinions and responding to your points by saying, "Nuh UH", which is the level of your debate. No. I produced the briefs of the states defending their laws; I produced the words of the anti-gay marriage expert and I produced links to studies as to the effect of gay parents on children. What, again, did you offer?

3. The thorough destruction (the actual one) of the nuclear family with a father and mother is not "anecdotal". A boy needing a father and a girl needing a mother is not "anecdotal". It's supported by one of the largest studies of its kind: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Not one word about a mother or father in that study- just you lying again.

http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

 

[Syriusly]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“The Fag Militia”

This is an example of the ignorance and hate common to most on the social right, illustrating the continued need of our Constitution and its case law to safeguard citizens’ civil rights from this sort of ignorance and hate.

That's a nice strawman. But what does it have to do with children and their rights? Do you believe that children fare better with two men or a father and a mother?)

Children fare better with good parents- usually better with 2 rather than 1, but even that is a generalization. Take any couple- and compare to another couple- and there is no 'test' that says which will be better parents or whose children will 'fare better'.

I have known children raised by amazing parents- who turned out really bad. Why? I don't know. I have known kids raised by a single gay man who turned out great. Why? I don't know- he is a great dad- but being a great dad is no guarantee.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, serial spammer thread troll Syriusly? Where are yooooou?

You miss me? Ah

When are you going to explain why you lie about Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall's study on Pedophilia?

 

[Syriusly]

Two fathers would be twice as many parents as a single father....Millions of children are raised by single mothers and single fathers- yet most of us- maybe not you- don't want to take those children away from their single parent....Two parents are twice the economic and social stability as one parent.

Then you are for legalizing polygamy marriage?

That is your straw man...Two fathers would be twice as many parents as a single father...Millions of children are raised by single mothers and single fathers- yet most of us- maybe not you- don't want to take those children away from their single parent.
Two parents are twice the economic and social stability as one parent.

A man and seven wives would be eight times as many parents as a single parent. And they would be eight times the economic and social stability as one parent.

So, you're argument IS IN FACT "more is better than one" "as married parents". So I'll ask again, you're in favor of polygamy marriage?

My argument is that same gender marriage is legal- and that two parents within is economically better than a single parent.

Where your polygamy argument falls apart is that we have actual examples of polygamous families- and they are economically disadvantaged to families with two parents.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

That is not the question. A child in foster care should be protected by the law from being handed over to a couple of sodomites. This is about Parents and their children and changing the constitution to transfer rights of the parent over to rights of the Child.

So Jeremiah- you want to prevent these children from being fostered or adopted by these men?

The couple contacted Credo Care, an organisation that specialises in disability foster placements. Shortly after, Armand arrived.

"He arrived in March, 10 years ago," explains David. Born in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, six-year-old Armand had lived in hospital for most of his short life. A wheelchair user, he has severe learning disabilities, a tracheotomy and is fed through a Peg [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy].

"He came to us when he was six and was the first one to arrive. Four months later, we had an emergency phone call, asking us if we'd take a boy from Derby. Luke arrived that afternoon. He was 12 and had Duchenne muscular dystrophy. In those days he could shuffle around, but now, he's totally … well, the disease has got hold of his body. He's 22 now. He's a great lad, he really is. He's brilliant."

A couple of months after Luke joined the household, the couple were asked to take Steven, who was five and had cerebral palsy and learning difficulties. They have looked after the three boys ever since. Two years ago, they adopted a little girl. Sadly, she wasn't well and didn't live long.

"We had 17 wonderful months," says David. "She was three when she died. It was just 10 days after the adoption was completed, and it was very sudden, so … we haven't gone down that road again," he adds, choosing his words carefully to describe what must have been a devastating experience.

The latest addition to the household arrived earlier this year. Three-year-old Emma is immobile, has limited vision and breathes via a tracheotomy, but appears to be thriving in their care.

"She's making huge progress," says Andrew. "She was in a place in Surrey, where she had lots of different people working with her. She couldn't make connections with people. Now she just has two voices that she hears all the time – the same people caring for her. And we have the luxury of spending time with her."

Talking to David and Andrew, I am struck by how matter-of-factly they talk about their family setup. They clearly derive great joy and reward from their role as carers, speaking about each child with affection and deep pride. To an unexperienced outsider, the idea of caring full-time for a child with severe learning difficulties – who may not be expected to live until adulthood – probably falls into the category of every parent's worst nightmare. However, the couple are a testament to the fact that it doesn't have to be regarded that way.

Gay foster carers I love every minute of it Life and style The Guardian

Yes.

He would prefer to see them in an institution where he does not have to be bothered with imperfect creations of God.

Better to be alone with God then in the wrong company.

And here we see the ignorance, hatred, and arrogance common to many Christians.

The truth is not arrogance, hatred nor ignorance, Clayton. The truth is the truth. The truth never claimed to be popular. On the contrary. To stay with the truth will cost you acquintances, friends, co-workers and even family members. To stay with the truth and keep on standing on it could cost you your very life. Which is why some folks part with the truth at the first inconvenience. Nevertheless, even if every human on earth were to abandon the Truth (as you have here) it would still remain the truth.

Truth is sovereign. It changes not. It is the same yesterday, today and forever. Facts may change but the Truth never changes. That is what is so glorious about the Truth. You can count on it to guide you and know you won't be misled, lost, or otherwise disappointed. The truth is the only standard we can go by. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. All else is sinking sand. Which is why you are perishing, Clayton. You've rejected the truth!

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“The Fag Militia”

This is an example of the ignorance and hate common to most on the social right, illustrating the continued need of our Constitution and its case law to safeguard citizens’ civil rights from this sort of ignorance and hate.

That's a nice strawman. But what does it have to do with children and their rights? Do you believe that children fare better with two men or a father and a mother?)

Children fare better with good parents- usually better with 2 rather than 1, but even that is a generalization. Take any couple- and compare to another couple- and there is no 'test' that says which will be better parents or whose children will 'fare better'.

I have known children raised by amazing parents- who turned out really bad. Why? I don't know. I have known kids raised by a single gay man who turned out great. Why? I don't know- he is a great dad- but being a great dad is no guarantee.

Children need a mother and a father. Not two mothers or two fathers. Children need a mother and a father. That is the way God designed the family unit. Mother, father, children.