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

[Silhouette]

You gonna answer this or not? How many pages will you spam to avoid answering it?

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]

Answer the question if you dare.

Wolves, 'monosexuals', polygamists and all the other red herrings aren't the issue the court is addressing in their June ruling.

Gay marriage is. And yet oddly, you now refuse to discuss gay marriage, won't discuss the children of same sex couples, won't discuss the effects of denying gay marriage on the children of same sex couples.

You're stuck.

You know your demands harm children. And you know that your proposal offers them no benefits to balance out 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.

So much for your empty lip service to 'children'. The moment these kids are inconvenient to your argument, you ignore them too.

 

[Silhouette]

You know your demands harm children. And you know that your proposal offers them no benefits to balance out 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.

So much for your empty lip service to 'children'. The moment these kids are inconvenient to your argument, you ignore them too.

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?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think we should stop teaching mental illness. What's next? Dog fucking?

 

[mdk]

You know your demands harm children. And you know that your proposal offers them no benefits to balance out 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.

So much for your empty lip service to 'children'. The moment these kids are inconvenient to your argument, you ignore them too.

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?

All this time you gas on about gay marriage and when pressed you change the topic. Too funny.

 

[mdk]

I think we should stop teaching mental illness. What's next? Dog fucking?

What the hell?

 

[Skylar]

You know your demands harm children. And you know that your proposal offers them no benefits to balance out 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.

So much for your empty lip service to 'children'. The moment these kids are inconvenient to your argument, you ignore them too.

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?

Laughing.....the court isn't ruling on polygamists, incest, wolves, 'monosexuals' or any of your other red herrings. They're ruling on gay marriage.

I've got you, Sil. You've painted yourself into a corner.

You know that denying gay marriage to the children of same sex parents hurts those children. And you know denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't benefit those children.

And yet you want to do it anyway. Don't ever bother trying to give lip service to 'children'. You just proved you don't give a shit. And you'll gladly hurt children if it means you can also hurt gays.

 

[Skylar]

You know your demands harm children. And you know that your proposal offers them no benefits to balance out 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.

So much for your empty lip service to 'children'. The moment these kids are inconvenient to your argument, you ignore them too.

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?

All this time you gas on about gay marriage and when pressed you change the topic. Too funny.

That's the best part! He's so completely fucked at this point that he can't even discuss his own topic.

He can't even mention the children of same sex couples. Can't discuss same sex parenting. Can't discuss the effects of denying gay marriage to those kids.

Sil, meet the corner. Enjoy the paint!

 

[Silhouette]

[You know that denying gay marriage to the parents of same sex parents hurts those children. And you know denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't benefit those children.

And yet you want to do it anyway. Don't ever bother trying to give lip service to 'children'. You just proved you don't give a shit. And you'll gladly hurt children if it means you can also hurt gays.

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?

(Noticing a theme yet? I'm not going to stop asking you the question until you answer it)

 

[Skylar]

(Noticing a theme yet? I'm not going to stop asking you the question until you answer it)

Yup! You're rhetorically fucked. As you've been forced to abandon your own topic......as you've painted yourself into a corner. You can't even discuss gay marriage anymore. You can't discuss its effects on the children of same sex parents. You can't even mention same sex parents. And you did it to yourself!

And I have a bully pulpit from which to hammer you mercilessly. To demonstrate again and again how you don't give a fuck about children. How you know your proposal will hurt these children immediately and extensively. How you know your proposal won't offer benefits to balance the harm.

And you want to hurt these children anyway....because it will also hurt gays. That's how deep your hatred goes.

 

[mdk]

[You know that denying gay marriage to the parents of same sex parents hurts those children. And you know denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't benefit those children.

And yet you want to do it anyway. Don't ever bother trying to give lip service to 'children'. You just proved you don't give a shit. And you'll gladly hurt children if it means you can also hurt gays.

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?

(Noticing a theme yet? I'm not going to stop asking you the question until you answer it)

None of us are entitled to join you in your red herring. You only care about children up until the point where you can't use them in your anti-gay crusade. They are pawns to you and nothing more.

 

[Skylar]

[You know that denying gay marriage to the parents of same sex parents hurts those children. And you know denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't benefit those children.

And yet you want to do it anyway. Don't ever bother trying to give lip service to 'children'. You just proved you don't give a shit. And you'll gladly hurt children if it means you can also hurt gays.

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?

(Noticing a theme yet? I'm not going to stop asking you the question until you answer it)

None of us are entitled to join you in your red herring. You only care about children up until the point where you can't use them in your anti-gay crusade. They are pawns to you and nothing more.

Exactly. The second these children aren't a tool to use to hurt gay people....Sil ignores them entirely. There's not even a pretense for giving a fiddler's fuck about anything but hurting gay people now.

And he did it to himself.

 

[mdk]

[You know that denying gay marriage to the parents of same sex parents hurts those children. And you know denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't benefit those children.

And yet you want to do it anyway. Don't ever bother trying to give lip service to 'children'. You just proved you don't give a shit. And you'll gladly hurt children if it means you can also hurt gays.

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?

(Noticing a theme yet? I'm not going to stop asking you the question until you answer it)

None of us are entitled to join you in your red herring. You only care about children up until the point where you can't use them in your anti-gay crusade. They are pawns to you and nothing more.

Exactly. The second these children aren't a tool to use to hurt gay people....Sil ignores them entirely. There's not even a pretense for giving a fiddler's fuck about anything but hurting gay people now.

And he did it to himself.

Which is funny b/c the moment it is mentioned that the arguments againist gay marriage are hauntingly familiar to those used to deny interracial marriage, Sil claims it has nothing to do with gay marriage. Wolves parenting children on the other hand is totally relevant or something. I almost feel bad for her at this point...almost.

 

[Montrovant]

Silhouette, are you aware that the Prince's Trust Youth Index has been going on for a number of years now? Are you aware the the one you keep linking is years old? Are you aware that the Index is not at all focused on same gender role models, and in fact that particular issue is may not have been talked about in any of the other surveys? Are you aware that there are many other factors in the surveys which may also have an effect on the overall wellbeing of the youths involved? Are you aware the the Index does not discuss gay marriage, gay parents, or anything of the sort? Are you aware that it does not present the conclusions which you repeatedly claim?

Are you really as foolish as you make yourself appear?

 

[Ravi]

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..

States give freebies to married couples because stable families make good citizens. Same sex families are entitled to the same freebies.

 

[Ravi]

Wolves? What am I missing?

 

[Skylar]

Wolves? What am I missing?

That Sil is running scared? Its red herring word salad at this point. Don't be surprised if he some how folds in zombies or talking mice.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh I meant the rare cases where wolves found babies in the wild and raised them. Should these children also have the benefits of marriage? And polygamists? And children of incest? Do they not also deserve the benefits of marriage? And what about the tens of millions of children of monosexuals...people preferring not to engage in sex with another person (after their kid is born normally, as with "gay parents")...also known as single parents. Don't those kids also deserve the benefits of marriage? Who are you to ordain religiously that ONLY gay people's kids enjoy the benefits of marriage? Are you some priest of some new religion where the glorified are only those lifestyles who attempt to copulate with the same gender?

What, are you bigoted against all those vastly larger numbers of other children also being denied the benefits of marriage? Do you HATE them?

Answer the questions.

 

[mdk]

Oh I meant the rare cases where wolves found babies in the wild and raised them. Should these children also have the benefits of marriage? And polygamists? And children of incest? Do they not also deserve the benefits of marriage? And what about the tens of millions of children of monosexuals...people preferring not to engage in sex with another person (after their kid is born normally, as with "gay parents")...also known as single parents. Don't those kids also deserve the benefits of marriage? Who are you to ordain religiously that ONLY gay people's kids enjoy the benefits of marriage? Are you some priest of some new religion where the glorified are only those lifestyles who attempt to copulate with the same gender?

What, are you bigoted against all those vastly larger numbers of other children also being denied the benefits of marriage? Do you HATE them?

Answer the questions.

The sad fact that you have abandoned the premise of your own thread and enacted a red herring goes to show how bankrupt your arguments have become. You only care about children until you can't use them in your anti-gay crusade. Once they do not fit that narrative they are discard like days old leftovers.

 

[Silhouette]

On the contrary, I care about the vast majority of children who would be unfairly sentenced to this twisted social experiment without the voices of their guardians (majority in each state) having a say so. Especially when the data is already in that the experiment can be predicted to fail in 50% of children caught up in "gay marriages" because of lack of their gender as a role model.