Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

[Silhouette]

Heads of families are guardians for children. States are the superior guardians of children to them. That is how family law is written. So a state first must consider the wants and needs and best environment for kids...THEN what the wants and needs etc. of the guardians of them are. Always in that order. Child welfare is superior in law to adults. Always. Evidence of this can be seen in the child abuse reporting laws that say even if you suspect but aren't sure or don't have proof that a child is being abused, you are required to report that suspicion "as a crime already happened"...or you can be prosecuted in most states for a misdemeanor. The adults accused in that situation don't have legal recourse against the reporter because the law always defaults to extremes to protect children.

The right is always welcome to practice their Communism, in Cuba. Individual Liberty to be a parent should be more important than the collectivism and social goals of a State, especially one that lays no claim to being Spartan.

Sorry, family law has existed for quite a long time. Suddenly now you're complaining about the States overriding custodians of minor children when its in the child's best interest? You do realize that courts give weight first to the children of marriage and then the adults of marriage; always in that order, yes? Welcome to longstanding law in America..

What, you're for complete ownership by "parents" of their kids and no matter what the public sees evidence of what's happening behind the closed doors of your home, you want zero access of that public to protect kids sporting obvious abuse?

 

[danielpalos]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State--there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our supreme law of the land.

 

[Silhouette]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State--there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our supreme law of the land.

Inserting allusions to violence now are we? In response to this? Or are you just spamming again..?

Page 8 (the left side on the green background) http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

The Daily Mail article from the Prince's Trust study... 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.

 

[danielpalos]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State--there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our supreme law of the land.

Inserting allusions to violence now are we? In response to this? Or are you just spamming again..?

Page 8 (the left side on the green background) http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

The Daily Mail article from the Prince's Trust study... 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.

Let me put it this way, no Thing our legislators can come up with, trumps our supreme laws of the land, without that power being delegated by the People.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

 

[Syriusly]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State--there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our supreme law of the land.

Inserting allusions to violence now are we? In response to this? Or are you just spamming again..?

Page 8 (the left side on the green background) http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdfe]

Not one word about same gender couples in the study.

Matter of fact, the Prince's study didnt' study same gender couples at all.

Just more lies by Silhouette.

 

[danielpalos]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State--there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of our supreme law of the land.

Inserting allusions to violence now are we? In response to this? Or are you just spamming again..?

Page 8 (the left side on the green background) http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdfe]

Not one word about same gender couples in the study.

Matter of fact, the Prince's study didnt' study same gender couples at all.

Just more lies by Silhouette.

Doesn't matter; the Judicature can only deal with Persons, if we have to quibble.

 

[Syriusly]

Your position is idiotic, unfounded, and predicated solely on animus toward gay Americans – hence un-Constitutional.

No, it's founded upon affinity towards children; which is not automatically an animus against the practice of gay sexual relationships. There is no such thing as a "gay American" anymore than there is a "bulimic American". One is a sexual compulsion, the other an eating compulsion. Behaviors don't define people.

What lies you spin.

Homosexuality is not a 'behavior"- no more than heterosexuality is a behavior - homosexuality is the attraction to persons of the same gender.

Acting on one's sexual preference is a behavior.

Just as spreading vile lies, rumors and innuendo to attack homosexuals is a typical behavior of yours.

 

[Skylar]

You've taken up the spamming torch when you're not role-playing with Syriusly or Skylar, eh daniel?

Um, Silo....you've spammed the Prince Trust study 19 times in this thread. Despite the fact that it never so much as mentions same sex parenting nor measures anything about same sex parents.

If you have no rational retort to any of the myriad of theory killing holes in your claims, just say so. But whining about spamming while you're spamming is an excuse for evidence.

 

[Silhouette]

It mentions lack of the same gender. For instance, it applies where a girl was raised by two gay men, or one normal man. Just as it applies for a boy being raised by two lesbians, or one normal woman. The study was about a lack of the same gender as a role model. A lack is a lack is a lack. No matter what number of "parents" a child has of the opposite gender as themself.

 

[Skylar]

It mentions lack of the same gender.

No, it doesn't. It mentions the lack of a good role model of the same gender. It doesn't speak to where those good role models come from. It could be parents. Or aunts and uncles. Or siblings. Or friends. Or clergy. Or coworkers. Or coaches. Or mentors. Or grandparents. Or teachers.

You assume its only parents. And the Prince Trust study never says this. You do. And you're nobody.

For instance, it applies where a girl was raised by two gay men, or one normal man.

Says who? Show us where the Prince Trust study says this. Specifically.

You can't.....as the Prince Trust Study say no such thing. All you can do is spam an enormous block post that doesn't say what you claim it does. All while ignoring the specific findings of the courts of harm to children from the denial of same sex marriage. ALong with more than a dozens studies that demonstrate an overwhelming consensus that children of same sex parents are fine.

Why would a rational person ignore any of what you do?

 

[danielpalos]

It mentions lack of the same gender. For instance, it applies where a girl was raised by two gay men, or one normal man. Just as it applies for a boy being raised by two lesbians, or one normal woman. The study was about a lack of the same gender as a role model. A lack is a lack is a lack. No matter what number of "parents" a child has of the opposite gender as themself.

You make it seem like children may be entitled to two parent households with opposite genders regardless of the wishes of their parents.

 

[Skylar]

It mentions lack of the same gender. For instance, it applies where a girl was raised by two gay men, or one normal man. Just as it applies for a boy being raised by two lesbians, or one normal woman. The study was about a lack of the same gender as a role model. A lack is a lack is a lack. No matter what number of "parents" a child has of the opposite gender as themself.

You make it seem like children may be entitled to two parent households with opposite genders regardless of the wishes of their parents.

You're starting to see why his citations are so utterly irrelevant. Denying gay marriage for same sex parents of children doesn't mean that the children magically get opposite sex parents. It only means that these children are guaranteed not to have married parents.

As Silo isn't arguing that the children of same sex parents should be taken away from. Rendering his entire argument irrelevant to the top of gay marriage in addition to being factually baseless.

 

[Silhouette]

You make it seem like children may be entitled to two parent households with opposite genders regardless of the wishes of their parents.

In a free country the state balances the best interest of freedom with respect to remaining as far out of the equation of freedom of adults as possible. This is why states have always incentivized instead of punished. We don't want to become Red China.

Can you think of any other reason on earth why states incentivize marriage if not to encourage the best formative environment for kids? What children are entitled to is a state they live in where their guardians ad litem (majority of voters) have a say in what environment is sweetly encouraged for their best behalf. What isn't at stake so much is each individual child. What is at stake is the collective of children, born and unborn into future generations untold and unseen who deserve a garden to grow in that is watered and tended with their best interest in mind, and not a garden filled with noxious invasive weeds of every description.

That water is a mother/father. The Prince's Trust survey has found that children who grow up without their own gender as a role model, suffer in clear and significant ways from a general sense of not belonging to the world...And Houston, that's a problem. The states need to have a say whether or not they want that for their future citizenry...a citizenry with members who can be predicted to be indigent, depressed, violent to themselves or others or suicidal (read the study). A state has a right to set the conditions which best lure the best formative environment that discourages those poor outcomes..

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

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

 

[Syriusly]

You make it seem like children may be entitled to two parent households with opposite genders regardless of the wishes of their parents.

Can you think of any other reason on earth why states incentivize marriage.

Sure.

Because it is in the State's interests to have couples committing to take care of each other.

And that is all that marriage commits to.

Not one word about children.

A married couple is not expected to have children.

But a married couple is expected to take care of each other.

 

[Silhouette]

..A married couple is not expected to have children.

But a married couple is expected to take care of each other.

Only in your mind. A state anticipates that in any marriage children will come along. And statistics overwhelmingly bear that out.

If all marriage was to a state was adults taking care of each other, then anyone could get married to anyone in any conceivable numbers or combinations...

...no....marriage incentives are about children first and adults second. In fact, law in general operates that way in America. Children (who cannot vote to affect their fate) get priority over adults in law; always.

 

[danielpalos]

You make it seem like children may be entitled to two parent households with opposite genders regardless of the wishes of their parents.

In a free country the state balances the best interest of freedom with respect to remaining as far out of the equation of freedom of adults as possible. This is why states have always incentivized instead of punished. We don't want to become Red China.

Can you think of any other reason on earth why states incentivize marriage if not to encourage the best formative environment for kids? What children are entitled to is a state they live in where their guardians ad litem (majority of voters) have a say in what environment is sweetly encouraged for their best behalf. What isn't at stake so much is each individual child. What is at stake is the collective of children, born and unborn into future generations untold and unseen who deserve a garden to grow in that is watered and tended with their best interest in mind, and not a garden filled with noxious invasive weeds of every description.

That water is a mother/father. The Prince's Trust survey has found that children who grow up without their own gender as a role model, suffer in clear and significant ways from a general sense of not belonging to the world...And Houston, that's a problem. The states need to have a say whether or not they want that for their future citizenry...a citizenry with members who can be predicted to be indigent, depressed, violent to themselves or others or suicidal (read the study). A state has a right to set the conditions which best lure the best formative environment that discourages those poor outcomes..

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

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

What happened to Individual Liberty over the "coercive use of force of the State"?

 

[danielpalos]

You make it seem like children may be entitled to two parent households with opposite genders regardless of the wishes of their parents.

Can you think of any other reason on earth why states incentivize marriage.

Sure.

Because it is in the State's interests to have couples committing to take care of each other.

And that is all that marriage commits to.

Not one word about children.

A married couple is not expected to have children.

But a married couple is expected to take care of each other.

Marriage is a natural right and purely private Act which is commuted public, for full faith and credit purposes.

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage is a natural right and purely private Act which is commuted public, for full faith and credit purposes.

Children having a mother and father incentivized to be in their lives is a natural right which is commuted public, for full faith and credit purposes.

 

[danielpalos]

Marriage is a natural right and purely private Act which is commuted public, for full faith and credit purposes.

Children having a mother and father incentivized to be in their lives is a natural right which is commuted public, for full faith and credit purposes.

Nope; having responsible parents is more important than the socialism of public policy which constitutes public use, while not even advocating for a Spartan public policy regime.

 

[Silhouette]

You're engaging in argumentative roundabouts...just like your friend Syriusly..