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

[Syriusly]

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.

Good point- and even though I noticed it I hadn't thought that through- the survey was in regards to unemployment for 16-25 year old's- doesn't mention marriage or homosexuals- and the issue of 'positive opposite gender role models' was just one of many factors that they discussed.

Silhouette as is her wont takes the study and creates a new fantasy version of it in her mind.

 

[mdk]

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.

How long are you going to keep pretending that The Prince's Trust study has anything to do with gay parents or gay marriage?

How long are you going to keep pretending that role models can only be found in one's parents?

Really, how long?

 

[Silhouette]

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.

Good point- and even though I noticed it I hadn't thought that through- the survey was in regards to unemployment for 16-25 year old's- doesn't mention marriage or homosexuals- and the issue of 'positive opposite gender role models' was just one of many factors that they discussed.

Silhouette as is her wont takes the study and creates a new fantasy version of it in her mind.

It is precisely because they were old enough to self-report without parental influence, yet young enough to be close in memory to that environment that that age group was selected...IDIOTS!

Of course, we know you folks prefer the APA's "small samples" with coercive audits and preference of prejudices and a social agenda clouding the conclusions they come to. Of course you would want kids still in the home, under the direct influence of the adult(s)/situation they were supposed to be honest and canded about. Of course!

How would you measure the ability of a child to fit into the world as an independant functioning/healthy adult without that child actually being on its own?

You folks are reaching now. There is something about the Prince's Trust findings that is rattling you.

Could it be that because gay marriage deprives 50% of the kids caught up in it a same-gender adult role model that you're freaking out about this study and reaching for ANYTHING to pull out of that nose dive?

 

[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.

Good point- and even though I noticed it I hadn't thought that through- the survey was in regards to unemployment for 16-25 year old's- doesn't mention marriage or homosexuals- and the issue of 'positive opposite gender role models' was just one of many factors that they discussed.

Silhouette as is her wont takes the study and creates a new fantasy version of it in her mind.

It is precisely because they were old enough to self-report without parental influence, yet young enough to be close in memory to that environment that that age group was selected...IDIOTS!

No, that isn't it at all. The Prince's trust helps young adults that are what they call NEETs, not in education, employment, or training. So they don't study younger children whatsoever. Sucks to be you

 

[Silhouette]

No, that isn't it at all. The Prince's trust helps young adults that are what they call NEETs, not in education, employment, or training. So they don't study younger children whatsoever. Sucks to be you

The age the survey selected was prime and perfect for the type of candid and non-coerced data the researchers were looking for.

I'm moving on from the stawman..

Dialogue from the US Supreme Court hearing on Prop 8/Windsor in 2013 (pay attention to the part in bold with respect to the Prince's Trust Survey)

Scalia: “Mr. Cooper, let me — let me give you one — one concrete thing. I don't know why you don't mention some concrete things. If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must — you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there's — there's considerable disagreement among — among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a — in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Some States do not — do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.” 13 key moments in the Supreme Court argument over gay marriage - U.S. News

The problem is in any contested point, there must be a Hearing on BOTH sides of the issue and not just a spoon-feeding of prefabricated tripe passed off "as science" sourced from the same funding entity (the APA) that has abdicated data in favor of what its clique wants the results to be.

The Prince's Trust offers that non-APA funded, objective results to contest small-sampled, audited, group-consensus "findings" from virtually the entire tome of amicus briefs the Court received on "how gay marriage affects child development". If the APA itself didn't publish the studies it subjectively was promoting, they for sure funded "outside citations". That in a nutshell was/is the Court digesting only one side of the debate on an excructiatingly important question in this debate: clearly the most fundamental quesiton of all which is "how will this social experiment affect the children caught up in it"?

It isn't like kids don't have enough shit to combat growing up under. Sociologically-speaking, gay marriage may be a tipping point in what our youth can bear without turning into something we as a society might not want to face in future generations.

 

[Ravi]

You can't move on from your own strawman. The Prince's Trust survey has nothing to do with same sex marriage. It has to do with NEETs in the 16 -25 age group that would more than likely not even live with their parents.

Saying there is considerable disagreement about something is pretty meaningless as evidence to anything, btw.

 

[Ravi]

This will make you crazy, Silly: Same-Sex Couples May Soon Be Able to Produce Biological Children The Bilerico Project

 

[Skylar]

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.

Good point- and even though I noticed it I hadn't thought that through- the survey was in regards to unemployment for 16-25 year old's- doesn't mention marriage or homosexuals- and the issue of 'positive opposite gender role models' was just one of many factors that they discussed.

Silhouette as is her wont takes the study and creates a new fantasy version of it in her mind.

It is precisely because they were old enough to self-report without parental influence, yet young enough to be close in memory to that environment that that age group was selected...IDIOTS!

The Prince Trust study mentions nothing of same sex parenting. There's not the slightest evidence that anyone responding was the child of same sex parents. As you've already admitted, the Prince Trust study doesn't measure parenting.

Ending your entire argument.

Of course, we know you folks prefer the APA's "small samples" with coercive audits and preference of prejudices and a social agenda clouding the conclusions they come to. Of course you would want kids still in the home, under the direct influence of the adult(s)/situation they were supposed to be honest and canded about. Of course!

And who says that all the studies you've ignored were 'small sample'? The University of Melbourne study for example had nearly 400 participants, but you utterly ignored it.

You ignore any study that contradicts you, from any country, any source, using any sample size, any methodology, from any university, or citing any expert.

Your sole criteria for a study's credibility....is that it agree with you. Or you can hallucinate a finding it never even mentions, as you did with the Prince Trust study.

Could it be that because gay marriage deprives 50% of the kids caught up in it a same-gender adult role model that you're freaking out about this study and reaching for ANYTHING to pull out of that nose dive?

Who says that only a parent can be a good same sex role model?

Not the Prince Trust study. That would be you. Citing yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

The problem is in any contested point, there must be a Hearing on BOTH sides of the issue and not just a spoon-feeding of prefabricated tripe passed off "as science" sourced from the same funding entity (the APA) that has abdicated data in favor of what its clique wants the results to be.

Strawman. Who says there was no hearing to prevent evidence?

The Prince's Trust offers that non-APA funded, objective results to contest small-sampled, audited, group-consensus "findings" from virtually the entire tome of amicus briefs the Court received on "how gay marriage affects child development".

The Prince Trust study never so much as mentions gay marriage, same sex couples or same sex parenting.

You hallucinated all of that.

If the APA itself didn't publish the studies it subjectively was promoting, they for sure funded "outside citations".

Given that you ignore any study from any source that contradicts you, what relevance would the source have to your argument? You ignored the APA, the nation's largest and most respected psychological assocation just as surely as you did the University of Melbourne, the University of Southern California and the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists.

Your sole criteria of credibility is that a study agree with you. That's confirmation bias.

It isn't like kids don't have enough shit to combat growing up under. Sociologically-speaking, gay marriage may be a tipping point in what our youth can bear without turning into something we as a society might not want to face in future generations.

Sociologically speaking, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Just like when you predicted civilization ending epidemics and nuclear meltdowns in the US if we treated EBOLA patients.

Your ability to type batshit doesn't have a thing to do with reality.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Good point- and even though I noticed it I hadn't thought that through- the survey was in regards to unemployment for 16-25 year old's- doesn't mention marriage or homosexuals- and the issue of 'positive opposite gender role models' was just one of many factors that they discussed.

Silhouette as is her wont takes the study and creates a new fantasy version of it in her mind.

It is precisely because they were old enough to self-report without parental influence, yet young enough to be close in memory to that environment that that age group was selected...IDIOTS!

What an idiotic claim.

That age group was the age group being surveyed- because it was a survey about youth unemployment.

'that environment' was not what the survey was about- 'positive gender role models' was merely one of the many factors that the survey discussed when discussing youth unemployment.

You should read your own citations sometime.

 

[Syriusly]

No, that isn't it at all. The Prince's trust helps young adults that are what they call NEETs, not in education, employment, or training. So they don't study younger children whatsoever. Sucks to be you

The age the survey selected was prime and perfect for the type of candid and non-coerced data the researchers were looking for.

I'm moving on from the stawman..

Dialogue from the US Supreme Court hearing on Prop 8/Windsor in 2013 (pay attention to the part in bold with respect to the Prince's Trust Survey)

Scalia: “Mr. Cooper, let me — let me give you one — one concrete thing. I don't know why you don't mention some concrete things. If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must — you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there's — there's considerable disagreement among — among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a — in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Some States do not — do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.” 13 key moments in the Supreme Court argument over gay marriage - U.S. News

The problem is in any contested point, there must be a Hearing on BOTH sides of the issue and not just a spoon-feeding of prefabricated tripe passed off "as science" sourced from the same funding entity (the APA) that has abdicated data in favor of what its clique wants the results to be..

there was never a hearing from 'both sides' when the APA designated homosexuality as a mental health disorder- why would there be one when they decided it wasn't?

 

[Silhouette]

This will make you crazy, Silly: Same-Sex Couples May Soon Be Able to Produce Biological Children The Bilerico Project

But they will not be able to produce a mother and father. Ever. And that's the point of suppressing access to 50% of kids in so-called "gay marriage" from an adult role model of their gender....and the damaging psychological turmoil resulting.. statistically...you know, relying on numbers instead of words..

 

[Skylar]

This will make you crazy, Silly: Same-Sex Couples May Soon Be Able to Produce Biological Children The Bilerico Project

But they will not be able to produce a mother and father. Ever. And that's the point of suppressing access to 50% of kids in so-called "gay marriage" from an adult role model of their gender....and the damaging psychological turmoil resulting.. statistically...you know, relying on numbers instead of words..

And who says that a good same sex role model can only be a parent?

That's the premise of your entire argument.

 

[Silhouette]

And who says that a good same sex role model can only be a parent?

That's the premise of your entire argument.

Easy, states only take the financial hit for extending freebies for married people because they expect a return. That expectation is the best formative environment for children that states know and expect, in fact rely upon that will statistically arrive, by birth, adoption or grandparenting. Otherwise statse wouldn't be involved in marriage at all.

The Prince's Trust survey's numbers tell us that 50% of kids in gay marriage or without a parent of their gender in a single parent home will be unemployed, depressed, into crime and drugs and harbor a sense of not belonging... All those things a state is supposed to ENCOURAGE with marriage incentives?


I think not..

 

[Skylar]

And who says that a good same sex role model can only be a parent?

That's the premise of your entire argument.

Easy, states only take the financial hit for extending freebies for married people because they expect a return.

And who says there will be no return? That would be you, citing yourself. And you aren't a credible source.

You assume that a parent can be the only positive same sex role model in a child's life. Based on absolutely nothing. Back in reality, a positive same sex role model could be a sibling, an aunt or an uncle, a friend, a teacher, a grandparent, a member of the clergy, a coach, a mentor, a colleague from work, or a myriad of others.

You ignore it all. There's no reason a rational person ever would. And certainly no reason the court will.

That expectation is the best formative environment for children that states know and expect, in fact rely upon that will statistically arrive, by birth, adoption or grandparenting. Otherwise statse wouldn't be involved in marriage at all.

And how does denying same sex couples marriage help their children? When you deny same sex parents access to marriage, their children don't magically have opposite sex parents. So your denial doesn't offer these children any benefit, even by your imaginary standards. All you've guaranteed is that these children will never have married parents.

Which harms them. And you know it harms these children.

 

[Silhouette]

All you've guaranteed is that these children will never have married parents.

Which harms them. And you know it harms these children.

No more than it harms the children of polygamists, or single parents or children of incest....or the rare children of wolves...are you suggesting all those kids enjoy the benefits of marriage too? Why or why not?

 

[Skylar]

All you've guaranteed is that these children will never have married parents.

Which harms them. And you know it harms these children.

No more than it harms the children of polygamists, or single parents or children of incest....or the rare children of wolves...are you suggesting all those kids enjoy the benefits of marriage too? Why or why not?

Says you. Justice Kennedy however has explicitly cited the harm;

"And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....

.....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for familiesby taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses.And it denies or re-duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouseand parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security."

Windsor v. US

So the harm to these children caused by denying their parents gay is known and recognized by the court. And by you. You know it hurts these children. Immediately and extensively.

Now, tell us how denying marriage to their parents helps these children? Does denying their parents marriage magically mean they have opposite sex parents? What's balances out the immediate legal harm, the humiliation, the financial harm, the difficulty in understanding the integrity and closeness of their own family, the increased cost of health benefits, the denial of an integral part of family security?

 

[Silhouette]

You gonna answer this or not?

All you've guaranteed is that these children will never have married parents.
Which harms them. And you know it harms these children.

No more than it harms the children of polygamists, or single parents or children of incest....or the rare children of wolves...are you suggesting all those kids enjoy the benefits of marriage too? Why or why not?

 

[Skylar]

You gonna answer this or not?

All you've guaranteed is that these children will never have married parents.
Which harms them. And you know it harms these children.

No more than it harms the children of polygamists, or single parents or children of incest....or the rare children of wolves...are you suggesting all those kids enjoy the benefits of marriage too? Why or why not?

So you know denying marriage to same sex parents harms those children. Badly.

Now, tell us how denying marriage to their parents helps these children? Does denying their parents marriage magically mean they have opposite sex parents? What's balances out the immediate legal harm, the humiliation, the financial harm, the difficulty in understanding the integrity and closeness of their own family, the increased cost of health benefits, the denial of an integral part of family security?

You're stuck, Silo. You know your proposal provides the children with nothing, while hurting them badly.

 

[Silhouette]

Answer the question if you dare.