Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

[Divine Wind]

A contract with whom? When have US citizens not been allowed to keep their children without just cause?

Are you trying to introduce a strawman? Yes, looks like you are. When you're ready to talk about the implications of the poll's results at the top of the page, let us know.

I'm just asking questions. You seem to be evasive.

Did you have regular contact with both a mother and father in life & think it was important?
*(I'm a moderate/independent) Yes. And yes it was important to me
17 vote(s) 16.2%

What are the implications of my response?

 

[Silhouette]

A contract with whom? When have US citizens not been allowed to keep their children without just cause?

Are you trying to introduce a strawman? Yes, looks like you are. When you're ready to talk about the implications of the poll's results at the top of the page, let us know.

I'm just asking questions. You seem to be evasive.

Did you have regular contact with both a mother and father in life & think it was important?
*(I'm a moderate/independent) Yes. And yes it was important to me
17 vote(s) 16.2%

What are the implications of my response?

Start a thread on the separate subject and I'd be happy to answer you. I asked you to discuss the results of the poll, not how you yourself voted. You are one out of 100. When you're ready to discuss how the 100 voted, let me know..

 

[Divine Wind]

Start a thread on the separate subject and I'd be happy to answer you. I asked you to discuss the results of the poll, not how you yourself voted. You are one out of 100. When you're ready to discuss how the 100 voted, let me know..

I'm among the 84ish of those who said "yes it was important to me" yet you have no interest in discussing it. You seem to be avoiding discussing your own thread. If you want me to leave, I shall. If you want to discuss the implications of "yes it was important to me" then please be honest and say what is on your mind.

 

[yiostheoy]

Gold star kid here.

 

[Silhouette]

Start a thread on the separate subject and I'd be happy to answer you. I asked you to discuss the results of the poll, not how you yourself voted. You are one out of 100. When you're ready to discuss how the 100 voted, let me know..

I'm among the 84ish of those who said "yes it was important to me" yet you have no interest in discussing it. You seem to be avoiding discussing your own thread. If you want me to leave, I shall. If you want to discuss the implications of "yes it was important to me" then please be honest and say what is on your mind.

Well do you think it's possible to at the same time find it "important" of an ideal for children to have regular mother/father contact and at the same time support gay marriage which denies that to children involved in the preponderance (almost universally) of cases...by contract...for life..?

 

[Syriusly]

The fact still remains....85% of the 100 who voted in this poll would disagree with a marriage that took away either a mother or father for life by that type of marriage's contract.

The fact remains that the poll didn't say that.

 

[Syriusly]

Start a thread on the separate subject and I'd be happy to answer you. I asked you to discuss the results of the poll, not how you yourself voted. You are one out of 100. When you're ready to discuss how the 100 voted, let me know..

I'm among the 84ish of those who said "yes it was important to me" yet you have no interest in discussing it. You seem to be avoiding discussing your own thread. If you want me to leave, I shall. If you want to discuss the implications of "yes it was important to me" then please be honest and say what is on your mind.

Well do you think it's possible to at the same time find it "important" of an ideal for children to have regular mother/father contact and at the same time support gay marriage which denies that to children involved in the preponderance (almost universally) of cases...by contract...for life..?

Gay marriage denies children nothing. No more than divorce denies children 'regular contact with their mother or father'.

Denying marriage to a gay couple doesn't help a single child.

But it does hurt the children of gay couples.

Why do you want to hurt those children?

 

[Divine Wind]

Well do you think it's possible to at the same time find it "important" of an ideal for children to have regular mother/father contact and at the same time support gay marriage which denies that to children involved in the preponderance (almost universally) of cases...by contract...for life..?

I think it's important for children to have parents not state-sponsored orphanages.

200,000+ years of Homo Sapien evolution has shown that there are reasons why men and women are different on the inside as well as the outside. That said, loving parents who are a gay/lesbian couple are much more preferable to an orphanage or being bounced around foster homes, which all to often are using children to pay their mortgage.

While I doubt a gay/lesbian couple provide the same exact form of parentage as a straight couple, the bigger problem is social assholes; those who hate anyone different than themselves. Several years ago a Marine Corps general testified to Congress he wouldn't want his homosexual son to serve in the military. Not because he didn't love his son or because he thought his son couldn't hack it, but because he feared for his son's well-being in a culture predisposed to attacking gays.

What are your thoughts on the question you asked me?

 

[Spare_change]

Interesting to note that there is a virtual unanimity that a two parent family is important, but yet one political party actively promotes single parenthood.

And, then they wonder why they lost.

 

[Silhouette]

Interesting to note that there is a virtual unanimity that a two parent family is important, but yet one political party actively promotes single parenthood.

And, then they wonder why they lost.

If by "two parent" you mean mother & father...

Yes, it's really a big mystery!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Denying marriage to a gay couple doesn't help a single child.

But it does hurt the children of gay couples.

Why do you want to hurt those children?

The children of gay couples are already hurt, in that they are being denied a chance at a proper upbringing in an intact family with a father and a mother. Establishing a sick mockery of a “marriage” between the homosexual “parents” does nothing to mitigate this harm.

 

[Divine Wind]

The children of gay couples are already hurt, in that they are being denied a chance at a proper upbringing in an intact family with a father and a mother. Establishing a sick mockery of a “marriage” between the homosexual “parents” does nothing to mitigate this harm.

What do you propose as a solution? Forcing mothers and fathers to marry and live together? What if they don't comply? Life in prison or just 18 years? LOL

 

[Syriusly]

Denying marriage to a gay couple doesn't help a single child.

But it does hurt the children of gay couples.

Why do you want to hurt those children?

The children of gay couples are already hurt, in that they are being denied a chance at a proper upbringing in an intact family with a father and a mother. Establishing a sick mockery of a “marriage” between the homosexual “parents” does nothing to mitigate this harm.

Denying marriage to their parents does not help those children- it only hurts those children- by denying them the legal protections that the children of married couples get.

So why do you want their children to be hurt?

Just so you can feel better about your own marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

Interesting to note that there is a virtual unanimity that a two parent family is important, but yet one political party actively promotes single parenthood..

Which party is against single parents?

Must be the party that is advocating to end divorce......and requiring single parents to marry........oh wait....no party is doing that.

 

[Syriusly]

Well do you think it's possible to at the same time find it "important" of an ideal for children to have regular mother/father contact and at the same time support gay marriage which denies that to children involved in the preponderance (almost universally) of cases...by contract...for life..?

I think it's important for children to have parents not state-sponsored orphanages.

200,000+ years of Homo Sapien evolution has shown that there are reasons why men and women are different on the inside as well as the outside. That said, loving parents who are a gay/lesbian couple are much more preferable to an orphanage or being bounced around foster homes, which all to often are using children to pay their mortgage.

Silhouette and all of the rest of the anti-gay marriage folks don't want to deal with that- for many reasons.

First and foremost- kids are just a smoke screen for them- a flimsy rationalization that they paper their opposition to gay marriage with. They are against gay marriage regardless of whether kids are involved or not- they just use kids as a tool to attack gay marriage.

Secondly- as I keep pointing out- and that they absolutely shy away from- denying marriage to gays just doesn't help anyone- it only hurts people.

Most of the gay couples who marry don't have children- it is a non-issue. Just as it is for a large portion of hetero couples who marry- including my 80 year old uncle who married last year.

For the couples who do have children- or plan on having children- denying the couples marriage doesn't miraculously provide straight parents to the kids. It only means those kids don't have married parents- which harms the kids.

I can never get a straight answer from these folks- they won't come right out and say that what they really want is for government to take these kids away from their parents- or maybe make it illegal for gays to procreate- but only actions like that would achieve what they say that they want- which is to not have any children being raised by gay parents.

Finally we come to adoption- here are the rough numbers:
100,000 children a year eligible and waiting for adoption- virtually all abandoned by their biological parents that Silhouette and her fellow travellers insist are better parents than gays are.
33,000 wait 5 years or more to be adopted.
23,000 foster kids age out of the system each year with no family to provide financial or emotional support.

Silhouette and the others don't want gays to adopt any of these kids. They prefer the kids stay in foster care, and age out of the system rather than be adopted by a person or couple that want to make a life time commitment to be these kids family.

 

[Divine Wind]

Well do you think it's possible to at the same time find it "important" of an ideal for children to have regular mother/father contact and at the same time support gay marriage which denies that to children involved in the preponderance (almost universally) of cases...by contract...for life..?

I think it's important for children to have parents not state-sponsored orphanages.

200,000+ years of Homo Sapien evolution has shown that there are reasons why men and women are different on the inside as well as the outside. That said, loving parents who are a gay/lesbian couple are much more preferable to an orphanage or being bounced around foster homes, which all to often are using children to pay their mortgage.

Silhouette and all of the rest of the anti-gay marriage folks don't want to deal with that- for many reasons.

First and foremost- kids are just a smoke screen for them- a flimsy rationalization that they paper their opposition to gay marriage with. They are against gay marriage regardless of whether kids are involved or not- they just use kids as a tool to attack gay marriage.

Secondly- as I keep pointing out- and that they absolutely shy away from- denying marriage to gays just doesn't help anyone- it only hurts people.

Most of the gay couples who marry don't have children- it is a non-issue. Just as it is for a large portion of hetero couples who marry- including my 80 year old uncle who married last year.

For the couples who do have children- or plan on having children- denying the couples marriage doesn't miraculously provide straight parents to the kids. It only means those kids don't have married parents- which harms the kids.

I can never get a straight answer from these folks- they won't come right out and say that what they really want is for government to take these kids away from their parents- or maybe make it illegal for gays to procreate- but only actions like that would achieve what they say that they want- which is to not have any children being raised by gay parents.

Finally we come to adoption- here are the rough numbers:
100,000 children a year eligible and waiting for adoption- virtually all abandoned by their biological parents that Silhouette and her fellow travellers insist are better parents than gays are.
33,000 wait 5 years or more to be adopted.
23,000 foster kids age out of the system each year with no family to provide financial or emotional support.

Silhouette and the others don't want gays to adopt any of these kids. They prefer the kids stay in foster care, and age out of the system rather than be adopted by a person or couple that want to make a life time commitment to be these kids family.

Children should have loving parents, but as you pointed out, there are several who are against such things for various reasons.

 

[Syriusly]

Well do you think it's possible to at the same time find it "important" of an ideal for children to have regular mother/father contact and at the same time support gay marriage which denies that to children involved in the preponderance (almost universally) of cases...by contract...for life..?

I think it's important for children to have parents not state-sponsored orphanages.

200,000+ years of Homo Sapien evolution has shown that there are reasons why men and women are different on the inside as well as the outside. That said, loving parents who are a gay/lesbian couple are much more preferable to an orphanage or being bounced around foster homes, which all to often are using children to pay their mortgage.

Silhouette and all of the rest of the anti-gay marriage folks don't want to deal with that- for many reasons.

First and foremost- kids are just a smoke screen for them- a flimsy rationalization that they paper their opposition to gay marriage with. They are against gay marriage regardless of whether kids are involved or not- they just use kids as a tool to attack gay marriage.

Secondly- as I keep pointing out- and that they absolutely shy away from- denying marriage to gays just doesn't help anyone- it only hurts people.

Most of the gay couples who marry don't have children- it is a non-issue. Just as it is for a large portion of hetero couples who marry- including my 80 year old uncle who married last year.

For the couples who do have children- or plan on having children- denying the couples marriage doesn't miraculously provide straight parents to the kids. It only means those kids don't have married parents- which harms the kids.

I can never get a straight answer from these folks- they won't come right out and say that what they really want is for government to take these kids away from their parents- or maybe make it illegal for gays to procreate- but only actions like that would achieve what they say that they want- which is to not have any children being raised by gay parents.

Finally we come to adoption- here are the rough numbers:
100,000 children a year eligible and waiting for adoption- virtually all abandoned by their biological parents that Silhouette and her fellow travellers insist are better parents than gays are.
33,000 wait 5 years or more to be adopted.
23,000 foster kids age out of the system each year with no family to provide financial or emotional support.

Silhouette and the others don't want gays to adopt any of these kids. They prefer the kids stay in foster care, and age out of the system rather than be adopted by a person or couple that want to make a life time commitment to be these kids family.

Children should have loving parents, but as you pointed out, there are several who are against such things for various reasons.

And we have no requirement that children have loving parents. Hell we no have requirements on becoming parents at all- any fertile man and woman can get drunk at a bar one night and end up pregnant- and they are legally presumed to be competent parents until proven otherwise.

Only when it comes to gay parents do these people demand different expectations.

 

[Silhouette]

Children should have loving parents, but as you pointed out, there are several who are against such things for various reasons.

"Various reasons.." You mean like the thousands of studies that show a boy having a father and a girl having a mother is vital to their wellbeing? We're talking overwhelming preponderance in statistics...not Syriusly's "rare exceptions to the rule". We set gold standards (marriage) by statistics, not rare exceptions to them.

 

[Divine Wind]

Children should have loving parents, but as you pointed out, there are several who are against such things for various reasons.

"Various reasons.." You mean like the thousands of studies that show a boy having a father and a girl having a mother is vital to their wellbeing? We're talking overwhelming preponderance in statistics...not Syriusly's "rare exceptions to the rule". We set gold standards (marriage) by statistics, not rare exceptions to them.

Vital? No. Air, Food and Water are vital. Love and education are very important. Feel free to cite any studies you prefer.

 

[Divine Wind]

Well do you think it's possible to at the same time find it "important" of an ideal for children to have regular mother/father contact and at the same time support gay marriage which denies that to children involved in the preponderance (almost universally) of cases...by contract...for life..?

I think it's important for children to have parents not state-sponsored orphanages.

200,000+ years of Homo Sapien evolution has shown that there are reasons why men and women are different on the inside as well as the outside. That said, loving parents who are a gay/lesbian couple are much more preferable to an orphanage or being bounced around foster homes, which all to often are using children to pay their mortgage.

Silhouette and all of the rest of the anti-gay marriage folks don't want to deal with that- for many reasons.

First and foremost- kids are just a smoke screen for them- a flimsy rationalization that they paper their opposition to gay marriage with. They are against gay marriage regardless of whether kids are involved or not- they just use kids as a tool to attack gay marriage.

Secondly- as I keep pointing out- and that they absolutely shy away from- denying marriage to gays just doesn't help anyone- it only hurts people.

Most of the gay couples who marry don't have children- it is a non-issue. Just as it is for a large portion of hetero couples who marry- including my 80 year old uncle who married last year.

For the couples who do have children- or plan on having children- denying the couples marriage doesn't miraculously provide straight parents to the kids. It only means those kids don't have married parents- which harms the kids.

I can never get a straight answer from these folks- they won't come right out and say that what they really want is for government to take these kids away from their parents- or maybe make it illegal for gays to procreate- but only actions like that would achieve what they say that they want- which is to not have any children being raised by gay parents.

Finally we come to adoption- here are the rough numbers:
100,000 children a year eligible and waiting for adoption- virtually all abandoned by their biological parents that Silhouette and her fellow travellers insist are better parents than gays are.
33,000 wait 5 years or more to be adopted.
23,000 foster kids age out of the system each year with no family to provide financial or emotional support.

Silhouette and the others don't want gays to adopt any of these kids. They prefer the kids stay in foster care, and age out of the system rather than be adopted by a person or couple that want to make a life time commitment to be these kids family.

Children should have loving parents, but as you pointed out, there are several who are against such things for various reasons.

And we have no requirement that children have loving parents. Hell we no have requirements on becoming parents at all- any fertile man and woman can get drunk at a bar one night and end up pregnant- and they are legally presumed to be competent parents until proven otherwise.

Only when it comes to gay parents do these people demand different expectations.

There is no law against being a parent, but there are laws on adoption.