Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate

[Silhouette]

Almost buried...last post to go...next page...oops...beat me to it!

Where were just half a minute ago before the spam fest...

Oh, right,

I already said that between these "positive" situations, a single hetero parent, married hetero parents and homosexual "married" "parents", that homosexuals were damaging to children not by virtue of their being basically decent people, but insteand by virtue of the structure of their relationship as embodying the complete exclusion of the opposite gender as part of a functioning adult/society system. THAT is how a child's mind perceives that daily lesson. THEREFORE, 50% of children caught up in so-called "gay marriage" would be saddled with that psychological burden that the Prince's Trust survey found with those without ANY adult role model of their gender ...a sense of not belonging at all to any system...

There is nothing more empty and woebegone for homo sapiens to experience than the pain of exclusion. In fact, in ancient times it was used as a punishment worse than death: banishment...exclusion from a clan or settlement. It was a slow form of death, an annihilation of being of the soul as well. That's powerful shit. And shit I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. These 50% of kids will be sentenced to a cousin-form of that soul death.

You'd have a point if gay couples adopted opposite gendered children and kept them locked away with no interaction with other members of their gender AND they willfully told the child his or her gender was useless.
But since that doesn't happen, you have no point. Except proving that you are rabidly homophobic.

Society (later) and family (immediate) are two very different worlds for the young formative child.. No expressed message at all need be uttered in the presence of the 50% of unfortunate children without their gender represented in their FORMATIVE VIEW (Introduction to the world at large) of the world (their immediate family)

These hypothetical gay parents could not say one disparaging word about the child's gender at all (though with my experience knowing lesbians especially, good luck with that one!). Their living structural example means to the child's excruciatingly logical and candid mind "Your gender doesn't matter". The formative child reads that as "YOU don't matter".. The fact that the "parents" are lesbians says "we have rejected men/males so utterly that we attempt to copulate with females only instead" (The child's logical mind will learn in biology where babies come from and what sex is for.) Same with gay men, "we have rejected women/females so utterly that we attempt to copulate with males only instead".

Kids are very probing and scathingly honest creatures; whereas adults are mired in layers upon layers of deception by the time they reach adulthood/parenthood. So there's going to be a problem in Houston..

A single parent hetero home is never preferable to a married hetero home; unless the marriage is in shambles and the state reluctantly grants divorce for the sake of the children. But a single parent hetero home pitted against a gay "marriage" home would be in interesting horse-race to see which would be more damaging...the financial struggles of the single parent who still is trying to make those 50% of kids matter in her home by reaching out still to the opposite gender; or the gay home that "tells" the kids daily "your gender NEVER matters".

(Got one spam logged below...probably two or three more by the time I press "save changes" button)

 

[Skylar]

Wolves have raised kids too, should they be married?

And this has what to do with gay marriage?

All that preventing 'gay marriage' accomplishes is to ensure that those children do not have married parents.

I think she's gone off the deep end.

Just wait until June. You will think that Armageddon, the Civil War and a nuclear holocaust all started on the same day from the way Silo is going to shit his proverbial pants.

And maybe his literal ones.

I just wonder who she would obsess over if gays suddenly all went back in the closet.

Secret gays? And maybe Ebola.

 

[Ravi]

Almost buried...last post to go...next page...oops...beat me to it!

Where were just half a minute ago before the spam fest...

Oh, right,

I already said that between these "positive" situations, a single hetero parent, married hetero parents and homosexual "married" "parents", that homosexuals were damaging to children not by virtue of their being basically decent people, but insteand by virtue of the structure of their relationship as embodying the complete exclusion of the opposite gender as part of a functioning adult/society system. THAT is how a child's mind perceives that daily lesson. THEREFORE, 50% of children caught up in so-called "gay marriage" would be saddled with that psychological burden that the Prince's Trust survey found with those without ANY adult role model of their gender ...a sense of not belonging at all to any system...

There is nothing more empty and woebegone for homo sapiens to experience than the pain of exclusion. In fact, in ancient times it was used as a punishment worse than death: banishment...exclusion from a clan or settlement. It was a slow form of death, an annihilation of being of the soul as well. That's powerful shit. And shit I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. These 50% of kids will be sentenced to a cousin-form of that soul death.

You'd have a point if gay couples adopted opposite gendered children and kept them locked away with no interaction with other members of their gender AND they willfully told the child his or her gender was useless.
But since that doesn't happen, you have no point. Except proving that you are rabidly homophobic.

Society (later) and family (immediate) are two very different worlds for the young formative child.. No expressed message at all need be uttered in the presence of the 50% of unfortunate children without their gender represented in their FORMATIVE VIEW (Introduction to the world at large) of the world (their immediate family)

These hypothetical gay parents could not say one disparaging word about the child's gender at all (though with my experience knowing lesbians especially, good luck with that one!). Their living structural example means to the child's excruciatingly logical and candid mind "Your gender doesn't matter". The formative child reads that as "YOU don't matter".. The fact that the "parents" are lesbians says "we have rejected men/males so utterly that we attempt to copulate with females only instead" (The child's logical mind will learn in biology where babies come from and what sex is for.) Same with gay men, "we have rejected women/females so utterly that we attempt to copulate with males only instead".

Kids are very probing and scathingly honest creatures; whereas adults are mired in layers upon layers of deception by the time they reach adulthood/parenthood. So there's going to be a problem in Houston..

A single parent hetero home is never preferable to a married hetero home; unless the marriage is in shambles and the state reluctantly grants divorce for the sake of the children. But a single parent hetero home pitted against a gay "marriage" home would be in interesting horse-race to see which would be more damaging...the financial struggles of the single parent who still is trying to make those 50% of kids matter in her home by reaching out still to the opposite gender; or the gay home that "tells" the kids daily "your gender NEVER matters".

why is it that you ignore people's posts and just spam like a bot?

 

[mdk]

Almost buried...last post to go...next page...oops...beat me to it!

Where were just half a minute ago before the spam fest...

Oh, right,

I already said that between these "positive" situations, a single hetero parent, married hetero parents and homosexual "married" "parents", that homosexuals were damaging to children not by virtue of their being basically decent people, but insteand by virtue of the structure of their relationship as embodying the complete exclusion of the opposite gender as part of a functioning adult/society system. THAT is how a child's mind perceives that daily lesson. THEREFORE, 50% of children caught up in so-called "gay marriage" would be saddled with that psychological burden that the Prince's Trust survey found with those without ANY adult role model of their gender ...a sense of not belonging at all to any system...

There is nothing more empty and woebegone for homo sapiens to experience than the pain of exclusion. In fact, in ancient times it was used as a punishment worse than death: banishment...exclusion from a clan or settlement. It was a slow form of death, an annihilation of being of the soul as well. That's powerful shit. And shit I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. These 50% of kids will be sentenced to a cousin-form of that soul death.

You'd have a point if gay couples adopted opposite gendered children and kept them locked away with no interaction with other members of their gender AND they willfully told the child his or her gender was useless.
But since that doesn't happen, you have no point. Except proving that you are rabidly homophobic.

Society (later) and family (immediate) are two very different worlds for the young formative child.. No expressed message at all need be uttered in the presence of the 50% of unfortunate children without their gender represented in their FORMATIVE VIEW (Introduction to the world at large) of the world (their immediate family)

These hypothetical gay parents could not say one disparaging word about the child's gender at all (though with my experience knowing lesbians especially, good luck with that one!). Their living structural example means to the child's excruciatingly logical and candid mind "Your gender doesn't matter". The formative child reads that as "YOU don't matter".. The fact that the "parents" are lesbians says "we have rejected men/males so utterly that we attempt to copulate with females only instead" (The child's logical mind will learn in biology where babies come from and what sex is for.) Same with gay men, "we have rejected women/females so utterly that we attempt to copulate with males only instead".

Kids are very probing and scathingly honest creatures; whereas adults are mired in layers upon layers of deception by the time they reach adulthood/parenthood. So there's going to be a problem in Houston..

A single parent hetero home is never preferable to a married hetero home; unless the marriage is in shambles and the state reluctantly grants divorce for the sake of the children. But a single parent hetero home pitted against a gay "marriage" home would be in interesting horse-race to see which would be more damaging...the financial struggles of the single parent who still is trying to make those 50% of kids matter in her home by reaching out still to the opposite gender; or the gay home that "tells" the kids daily "your gender NEVER matters".

You can post this bull-roar a thousands times in this thread and it still wouldn't prove any of your assertions.

 

[Skylar]

I already said that between these "positive" situations, a single hetero parent, married hetero parents and homosexual "married" "parents", that homosexuals were damaging to children not by virtue of their being basically decent people, but insteand by virtue of the structure of their relationship as embodying the complete exclusion of the opposite gender as part of a functioning adult/society system.

The Prince Study never says this. You do. Citing yourself. And you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

THEREFORE, your comments are baseless opinion. And of no substantive value when determining the health and well being of any child. And of course, contradicted by more than a dozen studies measuring the health of the children of same sex parents and finding they were fine. All of which you ignore, regardless of source.

You're willful ignorance doesn't magically make those contradictions disappear.

THAT is how a child's mind perceives that daily lesson.

Says you, pretending to be every child who has same sex parents. And you pretending to be a child isn't actually evidence of anything. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

(Got one spam logged below...probably two or three more by the time I press "save changes" button)

This is the third time you've posted this same block of text in the last 10 minutes. And you're complaining about 'spamming'?

Sigh....you can't fix stupid.

 

[mdk]

Almost buried...last post to go...next page...oops...beat me to it!

Where were just half a minute ago before the spam fest...

Oh, right,

I already said that between these "positive" situations, a single hetero parent, married hetero parents and homosexual "married" "parents", that homosexuals were damaging to children not by virtue of their being basically decent people, but insteand by virtue of the structure of their relationship as embodying the complete exclusion of the opposite gender as part of a functioning adult/society system. THAT is how a child's mind perceives that daily lesson. THEREFORE, 50% of children caught up in so-called "gay marriage" would be saddled with that psychological burden that the Prince's Trust survey found with those without ANY adult role model of their gender ...a sense of not belonging at all to any system...

There is nothing more empty and woebegone for homo sapiens to experience than the pain of exclusion. In fact, in ancient times it was used as a punishment worse than death: banishment...exclusion from a clan or settlement. It was a slow form of death, an annihilation of being of the soul as well. That's powerful shit. And shit I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. These 50% of kids will be sentenced to a cousin-form of that soul death.

You'd have a point if gay couples adopted opposite gendered children and kept them locked away with no interaction with other members of their gender AND they willfully told the child his or her gender was useless.
But since that doesn't happen, you have no point. Except proving that you are rabidly homophobic.

Society (later) and family (immediate) are two very different worlds for the young formative child.. No expressed message at all need be uttered in the presence of the 50% of unfortunate children without their gender represented in their FORMATIVE VIEW (Introduction to the world at large) of the world (their immediate family)

These hypothetical gay parents could not say one disparaging word about the child's gender at all (though with my experience knowing lesbians especially, good luck with that one!). Their living structural example means to the child's excruciatingly logical and candid mind "Your gender doesn't matter". The formative child reads that as "YOU don't matter".. The fact that the "parents" are lesbians says "we have rejected men/males so utterly that we attempt to copulate with females only instead" (The child's logical mind will learn in biology where babies come from and what sex is for.) Same with gay men, "we have rejected women/females so utterly that we attempt to copulate with males only instead".

Kids are very probing and scathingly honest creatures; whereas adults are mired in layers upon layers of deception by the time they reach adulthood/parenthood. So there's going to be a problem in Houston..

A single parent hetero home is never preferable to a married hetero home; unless the marriage is in shambles and the state reluctantly grants divorce for the sake of the children. But a single parent hetero home pitted against a gay "marriage" home would be in interesting horse-race to see which would be more damaging...the financial struggles of the single parent who still is trying to make those 50% of kids matter in her home by reaching out still to the opposite gender; or the gay home that "tells" the kids daily "your gender NEVER matters".

why is it that you ignore people's posts and just spam like a bot?

You'll find that Sil has a habit of ignoring anything that doesn't confirm her anti-gay crusade. Polls, studies, case law, you name it.

 

[Ravi]

Almost buried...last post to go...next page...oops...beat me to it!

Where were just half a minute ago before the spam fest...

Oh, right,

I already said that between these "positive" situations, a single hetero parent, married hetero parents and homosexual "married" "parents", that homosexuals were damaging to children not by virtue of their being basically decent people, but insteand by virtue of the structure of their relationship as embodying the complete exclusion of the opposite gender as part of a functioning adult/society system. THAT is how a child's mind perceives that daily lesson. THEREFORE, 50% of children caught up in so-called "gay marriage" would be saddled with that psychological burden that the Prince's Trust survey found with those without ANY adult role model of their gender ...a sense of not belonging at all to any system...

There is nothing more empty and woebegone for homo sapiens to experience than the pain of exclusion. In fact, in ancient times it was used as a punishment worse than death: banishment...exclusion from a clan or settlement. It was a slow form of death, an annihilation of being of the soul as well. That's powerful shit. And shit I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. These 50% of kids will be sentenced to a cousin-form of that soul death.

You'd have a point if gay couples adopted opposite gendered children and kept them locked away with no interaction with other members of their gender AND they willfully told the child his or her gender was useless.
But since that doesn't happen, you have no point. Except proving that you are rabidly homophobic.

Society (later) and family (immediate) are two very different worlds for the young formative child.. No expressed message at all need be uttered in the presence of the 50% of unfortunate children without their gender represented in their FORMATIVE VIEW (Introduction to the world at large) of the world (their immediate family)

These hypothetical gay parents could not say one disparaging word about the child's gender at all (though with my experience knowing lesbians especially, good luck with that one!). Their living structural example means to the child's excruciatingly logical and candid mind "Your gender doesn't matter". The formative child reads that as "YOU don't matter".. The fact that the "parents" are lesbians says "we have rejected men/males so utterly that we attempt to copulate with females only instead" (The child's logical mind will learn in biology where babies come from and what sex is for.) Same with gay men, "we have rejected women/females so utterly that we attempt to copulate with males only instead".

Kids are very probing and scathingly honest creatures; whereas adults are mired in layers upon layers of deception by the time they reach adulthood/parenthood. So there's going to be a problem in Houston..

A single parent hetero home is never preferable to a married hetero home; unless the marriage is in shambles and the state reluctantly grants divorce for the sake of the children. But a single parent hetero home pitted against a gay "marriage" home would be in interesting horse-race to see which would be more damaging...the financial struggles of the single parent who still is trying to make those 50% of kids matter in her home by reaching out still to the opposite gender; or the gay home that "tells" the kids daily "your gender NEVER matters".

why is it that you ignore people's posts and just spam like a bot?

You'll find that Sil has a habit of ignoring anything that doesn't confirm her anti-gay crusade. Polls, studies, case law, you name it.

I figured that since I asked her several times to back up her claim that a dating parent is good for a child's mental health. And she ignored me each time.

 

[mdk]

Almost buried...last post to go...next page...oops...beat me to it!

Where were just half a minute ago before the spam fest...

Oh, right,

I already said that between these "positive" situations, a single hetero parent, married hetero parents and homosexual "married" "parents", that homosexuals were damaging to children not by virtue of their being basically decent people, but insteand by virtue of the structure of their relationship as embodying the complete exclusion of the opposite gender as part of a functioning adult/society system. THAT is how a child's mind perceives that daily lesson. THEREFORE, 50% of children caught up in so-called "gay marriage" would be saddled with that psychological burden that the Prince's Trust survey found with those without ANY adult role model of their gender ...a sense of not belonging at all to any system...

There is nothing more empty and woebegone for homo sapiens to experience than the pain of exclusion. In fact, in ancient times it was used as a punishment worse than death: banishment...exclusion from a clan or settlement. It was a slow form of death, an annihilation of being of the soul as well. That's powerful shit. And shit I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. These 50% of kids will be sentenced to a cousin-form of that soul death.

You'd have a point if gay couples adopted opposite gendered children and kept them locked away with no interaction with other members of their gender AND they willfully told the child his or her gender was useless.
But since that doesn't happen, you have no point. Except proving that you are rabidly homophobic.

Society (later) and family (immediate) are two very different worlds for the young formative child.. No expressed message at all need be uttered in the presence of the 50% of unfortunate children without their gender represented in their FORMATIVE VIEW (Introduction to the world at large) of the world (their immediate family)

These hypothetical gay parents could not say one disparaging word about the child's gender at all (though with my experience knowing lesbians especially, good luck with that one!). Their living structural example means to the child's excruciatingly logical and candid mind "Your gender doesn't matter". The formative child reads that as "YOU don't matter".. The fact that the "parents" are lesbians says "we have rejected men/males so utterly that we attempt to copulate with females only instead" (The child's logical mind will learn in biology where babies come from and what sex is for.) Same with gay men, "we have rejected women/females so utterly that we attempt to copulate with males only instead".

Kids are very probing and scathingly honest creatures; whereas adults are mired in layers upon layers of deception by the time they reach adulthood/parenthood. So there's going to be a problem in Houston..

A single parent hetero home is never preferable to a married hetero home; unless the marriage is in shambles and the state reluctantly grants divorce for the sake of the children. But a single parent hetero home pitted against a gay "marriage" home would be in interesting horse-race to see which would be more damaging...the financial struggles of the single parent who still is trying to make those 50% of kids matter in her home by reaching out still to the opposite gender; or the gay home that "tells" the kids daily "your gender NEVER matters".

why is it that you ignore people's posts and just spam like a bot?

You'll find that Sil has a habit of ignoring anything that doesn't confirm her anti-gay crusade. Polls, studies, case law, you name it.

I figured that since I asked her several times to back up her claim that a dating parent is good for a child's mental health. And she ignored me each time.

Sil pretends that she providing a great service for the readers of the thread but I believe she is merely trying to convince herself at the point. She is selling it but most people are not buying it.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil pretends that she providing a great service for the readers of the thread but I believe she is merely trying to convince herself at the point. She is selling it but most people are not buying it.

I suppose all that matters is that one set of good (not corrupt or moles for the opposition like last time) lawyers due to appear on behalf of the states' rights to define marriage for themselves, "buys it". Logic is beautiful in that it doesn't agitate one viscerally in order to buy it.

 

[mdk]

Sil pretends that she providing a great service for the readers of the thread but I believe she is merely trying to convince herself at the point. She is selling it but most people are not buying it.

I suppose all that matters is that one set of good (not corrupt or moles for the opposition like last time) lawyers due to appear on behalf of the states' rights to define marriage for themselves, "buys it". Logic is beautiful in that it doesn't agitate one viscerally in order to buy it.

States have every right to define marriage for themselves but they are still subject to certain constitutional guarantees. That is part of Windsor decision you conveniently leave out or flat our ignore all the time. You free to ignore everything you find convenient to your narrative but do not expect the courts and the rest of us to do so with you.

 

[Silhouette]

You'll find that Sil has a habit of ignoring anything that doesn't confirm her anti-gay crusade. Polls, studies, case law, you name it.

I ignore studies that prefer "small samples" and "preference of words over numbers". See the OP for details..

Meanwhile none of you except Ravi have responded lucidly to any of these points I've made about child developmental psychology..

Care to take a stab?

*********
I already said that between these "positive" situations, a single hetero parent, married hetero parents and homosexual "married" "parents", that homosexuals were damaging to children not by virtue of their being basically decent people, but insteand by virtue of the structure of their relationship as embodying the complete exclusion of the opposite gender as part of a functioning adult/society system. THAT is how a child's mind perceives that daily lesson. THEREFORE, 50% of children caught up in so-called "gay marriage" would be saddled with that psychological burden that the Prince's Trust survey found with those without ANY adult role model of their gender ...a sense of not belonging at all to any system...

There is nothing more empty and woebegone for homo sapiens to experience than the pain of exclusion. In fact, in ancient times it was used as a punishment worse than death: banishment...exclusion from a clan or settlement. It was a slow form of death, an annihilation of being of the soul as well. That's powerful shit. And shit I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. These 50% of kids will be sentenced to a cousin-form of that soul death.

You'd have a point if gay couples adopted opposite gendered children and kept them locked away with no interaction with other members of their gender AND they willfully told the child his or her gender was useless.
But since that doesn't happen, you have no point. Except proving that you are rabidly homophobic.

Society (later) and family (immediate) are two very different worlds for the young formative child.. No expressed message at all need be uttered in the presence of the 50% of unfortunate children without their gender represented in their FORMATIVE VIEW (Introduction to the world at large) of the world (their immediate family)

These hypothetical gay parents could not say one disparaging word about the child's gender at all (though with my experience knowing lesbians especially, good luck with that one!). Their living structural example means to the child's excruciatingly logical and candid mind "Your gender doesn't matter". The formative child reads that as "YOU don't matter".. The fact that the "parents" are lesbians says "we have rejected men/males so utterly that we attempt to copulate with females only instead" (The child's logical mind will learn in biology where babies come from and what sex is for.) Same with gay men, "we have rejected women/females so utterly that we attempt to copulate with males only instead".

Kids are very probing and scathingly honest creatures; whereas adults are mired in layers upon layers of deception by the time they reach adulthood/parenthood. So there's going to be a problem in Houston..

A single parent hetero home is never preferable to a married hetero home; unless the marriage is in shambles and the state reluctantly grants divorce for the sake of the children. But a single parent hetero home pitted against a gay "marriage" home would be in interesting horse-race to see which would be more damaging...the financial struggles of the single parent who still is trying to make those 50% of kids matter in her home by reaching out still to the opposite gender; or the gay home that "tells" the kids daily "your gender NEVER matters".

 

[mdk]

You'll find that Sil has a habit of ignoring anything that doesn't confirm her anti-gay crusade. Polls, studies, case law, you name it.

I ignore studies that prefer "small samples" and "preference of words over numbers". See the OP for details..

Meanwhile none of you except Ravi have responded lucidly to any of these points I've made about child developmental psychology..

Care to take a stab?

*********
I already said that between these "positive" situations, a single hetero parent, married hetero parents and homosexual "married" "parents", that homosexuals were damaging to children not by virtue of their being basically decent people, but insteand by virtue of the structure of their relationship as embodying the complete exclusion of the opposite gender as part of a functioning adult/society system. THAT is how a child's mind perceives that daily lesson. THEREFORE, 50% of children caught up in so-called "gay marriage" would be saddled with that psychological burden that the Prince's Trust survey found with those without ANY adult role model of their gender ...a sense of not belonging at all to any system...

There is nothing more empty and woebegone for homo sapiens to experience than the pain of exclusion. In fact, in ancient times it was used as a punishment worse than death: banishment...exclusion from a clan or settlement. It was a slow form of death, an annihilation of being of the soul as well. That's powerful shit. And shit I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. These 50% of kids will be sentenced to a cousin-form of that soul death.

You'd have a point if gay couples adopted opposite gendered children and kept them locked away with no interaction with other members of their gender AND they willfully told the child his or her gender was useless.
But since that doesn't happen, you have no point. Except proving that you are rabidly homophobic.

Society (later) and family (immediate) are two very different worlds for the young formative child.. No expressed message at all need be uttered in the presence of the 50% of unfortunate children without their gender represented in their FORMATIVE VIEW (Introduction to the world at large) of the world (their immediate family)

These hypothetical gay parents could not say one disparaging word about the child's gender at all (though with my experience knowing lesbians especially, good luck with that one!). Their living structural example means to the child's excruciatingly logical and candid mind "Your gender doesn't matter". The formative child reads that as "YOU don't matter".. The fact that the "parents" are lesbians says "we have rejected men/males so utterly that we attempt to copulate with females only instead" (The child's logical mind will learn in biology where babies come from and what sex is for.) Same with gay men, "we have rejected women/females so utterly that we attempt to copulate with males only instead".

Kids are very probing and scathingly honest creatures; whereas adults are mired in layers upon layers of deception by the time they reach adulthood/parenthood. So there's going to be a problem in Houston..

A single parent hetero home is never preferable to a married hetero home; unless the marriage is in shambles and the state reluctantly grants divorce for the sake of the children. But a single parent hetero home pitted against a gay "marriage" home would be in interesting horse-race to see which would be more damaging...the financial struggles of the single parent who still is trying to make those 50% of kids matter in her home by reaching out still to the opposite gender; or the gay home that "tells" the kids daily "your gender NEVER matters".

No actually, you ignore anything that doesn't confirm your bias. You have proven this time and time again. Which is why you ignore any post, any study, any case law, or anything that destroys your assertions.

What is there to stab? You think gays raising children is just like exile and banishment punishments of The Bronze Age. It is a patently absurd claim. You may now continue with your regularly scheduled spam fest.

 

[Skylar]

Sil pretends that she providing a great service for the readers of the thread but I believe she is merely trying to convince herself at the point. She is selling it but most people are not buying it.

I suppose all that matters is that one set of good (not corrupt or moles for the opposition like last time) lawyers due to appear on behalf of the states' rights to define marriage for themselves, "buys it". Logic is beautiful in that it doesn't agitate one viscerally in order to buy it.

Which might have some relevance to your claims if you used logic. But you don't. For example, where does the Prince Trust study say that only parents can be positive same gender role models?

No where. Why then do you assume that only parents can be positive same gender role models?

 

[mdk]

The Prince's Trust has about as much relevance to gay marriage as the Nielsen Ratings. Which is none.

 

[Syriusly]

Almost buried...last post to go...next page...oops...beat me to it!

Where were just half a minute ago before the spam fest...

Oh, right,

I already said that between these "positive" situations, a single hetero parent, married hetero parents and homosexual "married" "parents")

Once again- what does that have to do with gay marriage?

Still waiting for a hint of an honest reply from you just once.

Preventing gay parents from marrying, only ensures that their children do not have married parents.

Why do you think that benefits their children?

 

[Skylar]

You'll find that Sil has a habit of ignoring anything that doesn't confirm her anti-gay crusade. Polls, studies, case law, you name it.

I ignore studies that prefer "small samples" and "preference of words over numbers". See the OP for details.

No you don't. You've been citing the 13 people polling sample of your 'shadow justice' thread for days. And you ignored Gallup with a 1000 person poll that demonstrated the public supports gay marriage.

Sample size means nothing to you. Only a source's agreement with you matters.

Worse, you've ignored every study that found that children of same sex parents are doing well. Using any sample size. From any country. From any university. Using any methodology. Citing any expert. If it contradicts you, you ignore it.

That's not logical. But a fallacy of logic called 'confirmation bias'.

I already said that between these "positive" situations, a single hetero parent, married hetero parents and homosexual "married" "parents", that homosexuals were damaging to children not by virtue of their being basically decent people, but insteand by virtue of the structure of their relationship as embodying the complete exclusion of the opposite gender as part of a functioning adult/society system.

And you having 'said' something isn't evidence that what you've said is accurate. The Prince Trust study doesn't say anything you just did. You made it all up, citing yourself.

Your polling sample is 1. You.

As I said, you don't give a shit about sample size.

THAT is how a child's mind perceives that daily lesson.

Says you, imagining that you are a child raised by a same sex couple. And your imagination isn't evidence of anything, as you don't know what you're talking about.

THEREFORE, your claims are baseless opinion. And of no substantive value to anyone who wishes to glean anything about the health of any child.

 

[Silhouette]

How long are you folks going to play pretend that gay marriage deprives 50% of children in them an adult role model of their same gender?

Really, how long? "Gay marriage' either structurally does this or it doesn't. You can argue about individual players in marriage until you are blue in the face, but at the end of the day the structure of "gay marriage" deprives 50% of kids in the home a role model of their same gender. So as to the findings of the Prince's Trust study, it applies to 50% of gay marriage's children.

 

[Skylar]

How long are you folks going to play pretend that gay marriage deprives 50% of children in them an adult role model of their same gender?

Who says that the only good same sex role model is a parent?

 

[Ravi]

Has anyone else noticed that the "children" in this survey are 16 - 25 year olds? Not exactly children and more than likely they do not live with their parents. So there would be no same same gendered parent with them anyway.

 

[Syriusly]

How long are you folks going to play pretend that gay marriage deprives 50% of children in them an adult role model of their same gender?n.

I am not pretending that gay marriage does deprive 50% of children of anything.

Depriving a gay parents of marriage only deprives their children of having married parents.

Still waiting for you to EVER tell us how you think preventing 'gay marriage' will do anything more than prevent their children from having married parents.