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

[AceRothstein]

Do you guys HATE batboy? Do you want batboy deprived of the benefits of marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Why should we address your bizarre Wolf strawmen- when you refuse to answer the question?

Why don't you give a damn about the children of gay parents?

 

[Syriusly]

Date found: 1867
Age when found: 6
Location: Sekandra, India
Years in the wild: 6
Animals: wolves
Dina Sanichar, one of the boys who lived at the Sekandra orphanage, is usually assumed to have been mentally sub-normal. He was removed from a wolves’ cave in 1867 when he was about six years old. Dina Sanichar was discovered when hunters in the jungles of Bulandshahr were astonished to see a boy follow a wolf into her den, running on all fours. They smoked out the wolf and her companion and shot the wolf.
He initially exhibited all the habits of a wild animal, tearing off clothes and eating food from the ground. He was eventually weaned off raw meat onto cooked, but never did learn to speak. He apparently became addicted to tobacco. Dina Sanichar died in 1895.

Date found: 1920
Age when found: 8 (Kamala), 1.5 (Amala)
Location: Midnapore, India
Years in the wild: 8, 1
Animals: wolves
Perhaps one of the best-known and controversial stories of feral children is that of Amala and Kamala. Kamala and Amala are two of the most interesting cases of feral children. The wolf girls were about 18 months (Amala) and eight years old (Kamala) when they were found together in a wolves’ den. However, it is believed that they were not sisters, but were abandoned — or taken by wolves — some years apart...

Date found: 1990
Age when found: 12
Location: Andes, Perú
Years in the wild: 8
Animals: goats
The Andes Goat-Boy was found in the Andes, Peru, in 1990, and was said to have been raised by goats for eight years. He is supposed to have survived by drinking their milk, and eating roots and berries. Being in wild, he developed the obvious feral characteristics.
He tended to walk with all his 4 limbs, his hands and feet were hardened due to scar formation that acted like his hoofs. He could communicate with goats and could not learn human language.
After being found, the Andes Goat-Boy was investigated by a team from Kansas University ( The University of Kansas or Kansas State University) and named Daniel.

(more: 10 Feral Human Children Raised by Animals )

Do you guys HATE these children? Do you want them deprived of the benefits of marriage? How about those of polygamists? Incest children? Why do you HATE all those kids?

If you're going to justify depriving 50% of kids of their gender as an adult role model, why not justify all the rest? Depriving of same gender adult role model is shown by the Prince's Trust to be damaging and you're saying "let's go ahead and do that anyway because magically, somehow, it won't be damaging if it's gay".

So sad that Silhouette automatically believes that crap.

But then again she believes all sorts of crap.

 

[Silhouette]

Why should we address your bizarre Wolf strawmen- when you refuse to answer the question?

Why don't you give a damn about the children of gay parents?

Because I care about the kids of people play-acting gay "parents' is precisely why I've been posting on the topic of gay marriage for almost a decade now. I just think those kids have dominant rights to their adults and you don't. That's where we differ.

 

[Syriusly]

Why should we address your bizarre Wolf strawmen- when you refuse to answer the question?

Why don't you give a damn about the children of gay parents?

Because I care about the kids of people play-acting gay "parents' is precisely why I've been posting on the topic of gay marriage for almost a decade now. I just think those kids have dominant rights to their adults and you don't. That's where we differ.

You don't give a damn about the kids of gay parents- or any kids.

I will ask you once again- how will preventing their parents from marrying protect those children- or any children?

 

[Skylar]

Why should we address your bizarre Wolf strawmen- when you refuse to answer the question?

Why don't you give a damn about the children of gay parents?

Because I care about the kids of people play-acting gay "parents' is precisely why I've been posting on the topic of gay marriage for almost a decade now. I just think those kids have dominant rights to their adults and you don't. That's where we differ.

No, you believe in willfully and knowingly hurting children badly....if it lets you hurt gays. Let me demonstrate:

Denying same sex parents access to marriage hurts their children. This is an explicit finding of the Supreme Court:

"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 families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

So your proposal intentionally inflicts harm on children by denying them an understanding of the integrity and closeness of their own families, by humiliating them, by financially harming them, by making it harder to provide them healthcare, and denying them an integral part of family security.

So......what benefits does your proposal offer to balance these extensive harms your proposal unquestioningly inflicts?

..........

.....

...

..

.

Nothing, huh? So your proposals cause 'immediate legal harm' to children, humiliating and depriving them of financial support......and doesn't balance that harm with benefit.

And you're eager to do it anyway......so you can hurt gays too. Don't ever bother trying to give lip service to 'children'. They're just a horse for you ride. The moment they don't let you hurt gays, they're nothing to you.

 

[Silhouette]

You don't give a damn about the kids of gay parents- or any kids.

I will ask you once again- how will preventing their parents from marrying protect those children- or any children?

Honey, I'm not the one who belongs to a cult that worships Harvey Milk, sodomizer of children. Which has as its main ombudsman for children, one Kevin Jennings, gay education czar, champion of exposing kids in school to his "lifelong work" of "fisting" and "the joys of anal sex" (as HIV rates in young boys from trying gay sex still skyrockets). Nor do I flip flop from day to day between a defense of the interests of children to "kids don't belong in the marriage debate...it's about adults"...like your side does; when it's convenient..

Beware the convenient defenders of children because they do not belong as their custodians..Yes. On that we both agree. The proof is in the pudding. And on your side of the fence the pudding is looking quite a bit like people who use children instead of advocate for them; much like a pedophile does. So your messiahs actually are the shoe fitting.

 

[Skylar]

You don't give a damn about the kids of gay parents- or any kids.

I will ask you once again- how will preventing their parents from marrying protect those children- or any children?

Honey, I'm not the one who belongs to a cult that worships Harvey Milk, sodomizer of children.

In comparison to your Elvis, who molested children? C'mon. You don't care about kids. When a 24 year old Elvis lied to Pricilla's parents to get their 14 year old daughter in bed and do 'everything but actual intercourse' with her, you don't care. Children are only a horse for you to ride.You only care about them if they let you attack and harm gay people.

If you can't use children to hurt gays, you ignore them. Just like you ignore the children of gays who will unquestioningly be harmed by your proposal to deny their parents marriage. You won't speak of them, you won't discuss them, you completely ignore them.

Why? You can't use them to hurt gays. So they are nothing to you. Despite there being tens of thousands of them, and you know your proposal hurts them. As you put it, instead of advocating for children, you use them.

Beware the convenient defenders of children because they do not belong as their custodians..Yes. On that we both agree. The proof is in the pudding. And on your side of the fence the pudding is looking quite a bit like people who use children instead of advocate for them; much like a pedophile does. So your messiahs actually are the shoe fitting.

The only one even mentioning Harvey Milk is you. And only as a dodge to run from your own topic. As for your 'use children instead of advocate for them' standard, lets put your reasoning to the test.

How does denying same sex marriage help the children of same sex parents? We already know the horrendous costs to them, as outlined by Kennedy. Now explain the benefit to balance the immediate legal harm caused by denying same sex marriage.

If you're using children instead of advocating, you'll ignore these children as you always do. As you can't use them to hurt gay people.

If you're advocating these children instead of using them, you'll tell us what benefiits balance out the immediately legal harm you insist we inflict upon them.

........we both know what you're going to do, Silo. I'm simply forcing you to demonstrate it for us.

 

[Syriusly]

You don't give a damn about the kids of gay parents- or any kids.

I will ask you once again- how will preventing their parents from marrying protect those children- or any children?

Honey, I'm not the one who.

You are the one who keeps saying you 'care about kids' but will not answer a simple question:

How will preventing gay parents from marrying protect those children- or any children?

 

[Silhouette]

The experimental standard enacted to force gay marraige on the states removes states' ability to carve the best formative environment for untold numbers of children into the future. States incentivize marriage to entice the best situation for children. Depriving children of their same gender as a role model is harmful to them, a la Prince's Trust survey conclusion. Gay marriage guarantees that deprivation for 50% of the kids involved. Normal marriage never does.

 

[Skylar]

The experimental standard enacted to force gay marraige on the states removes states' ability to carve the best formative environment for untold numbers of children into the future. States incentivize marriage to entice the best situation for children. Depriving children of their same gender as a role model is harmful to them, a la Prince's Trust survey conclusion. Gay marriage guarantees that deprivation for 50% of the kids involved. Normal marriage never does.

And how will denying marriage to same sex parents benefit their children? The courts have already given an stark summary of the immediate legal harm your proposal will cause.

What's the benefit that balances it out?

Or will you ignore these children now that you can't use them to hurt gays?

 

[Montrovant]

The experimental standard enacted to force gay marraige on the states removes states' ability to carve the best formative environment for untold numbers of children into the future. States incentivize marriage to entice the best situation for children. Depriving children of their same gender as a role model is harmful to them, a la Prince's Trust survey conclusion. Gay marriage guarantees that deprivation for 50% of the kids involved. Normal marriage never does.

You're lying again.

Gay marriage in no way guarantees that 50% of the children are deprived of a same gender role model. At most, 50% of the children of gay parents are deprived of a same gender parent. Role models are in no way limited to parents, which has been pointed out to you repeatedly, just like so many of the mistakes and lies you post.

 

[Skylar]

The experimental standard enacted to force gay marraige on the states removes states' ability to carve the best formative environment for untold numbers of children into the future. States incentivize marriage to entice the best situation for children. Depriving children of their same gender as a role model is harmful to them, a la Prince's Trust survey conclusion. Gay marriage guarantees that deprivation for 50% of the kids involved. Normal marriage never does.

You're lying again.

Gay marriage in no way guarantees that 50% of the children are deprived of a same gender role model. At most, 50% of the children of gay parents are deprived of a same gender parent. Role models are in no way limited to parents, which has been pointed out to you repeatedly, just like so many of the mistakes and lies you post.

Silo knows this. Just like he knows that denying marriage to same sex parents don't benefit their children......while causing them extensive harm.

He just doesn't give a shit.

 

[Syriusly]

The experimental standard enacted to force gay marraige on the states removes states' ability to carve the best formative environment for untold numbers of children into the future. States incentivize marriage to entice the best situation for children. Depriving children of their same gender as a role model is harmful to them, a la Prince's Trust survey conclusion. Gay marriage guarantees that deprivation for 50% of the kids involved. Normal marriage never does.

Once again- and I will never tire of asking the question that you dare not answer:

You are the one who keeps saying you 'care about kids' but will not answer a simple question:

How will preventing gay parents from marrying protect those children- or any children?

 

[Syriusly]

The experimental standard enacted to force gay marraige on the states removes states' ability to carve the best formative environment for untold numbers of children into the future. States incentivize marriage to entice the best situation for children. Depriving children of their same gender as a role model is harmful to them, a la Prince's Trust survey conclusion. Gay marriage guarantees that deprivation for 50% of the kids involved. Normal marriage never does.

You're lying again.

Gay marriage in no way guarantees that 50% of the children are deprived of a same gender role model. At most, 50% of the children of gay parents are deprived of a same gender parent. Role models are in no way limited to parents, which has been pointed out to you repeatedly, just like so many of the mistakes and lies you post.

Silo knows this. Just like he knows that denying marriage to same sex parents don't benefit their children......while causing them extensive harm.

He just doesn't give a shit.

Bingo- to Silhouette, children are just more rotten tomatoes she can use to throw at homosexuals.

 

[Silhouette]

I beg to differ, oh chronically verbally-abusive "poor weak gay Syriusly"..

The experimental standard enacted to force gay marraige on the states removes states' ability to carve the best formative environment for untold numbers of children into the future. States incentivize marriage to entice the best situation for children. Depriving children of their same gender as a role model is harmful to them, a la Prince's Trust survey conclusion. Gay marriage guarantees that deprivation for 50% of the kids involved. Normal marriage never does.

You're lying again.

Gay marriage in no way guarantees that 50% of the children are deprived of a same gender role model. At most, 50% of the children of gay parents are deprived of a same gender parent. Role models are in no way limited to parents, which has been pointed out to you repeatedly, just like so many of the mistakes and lies you post.

Yes but incentivizing a physical structure for the formative environment of kids that is known to be deficient in significant ways is not what states are in the business doing, doling out incentives (and taking a loss for it) for marriage. A state would be fiscally irresponsible to foster in any way on a daily basis the structural lack of a vital role model and then reward it with financial perks.

That's the only reason states are involved in marriage. They don't want to play the statistics game stacked against the children they're hoping won't become criminals, mentally ill or non-productive. Those outcomes are expensive. So the state wants all children in marriage to have a daily parent/role model of their gender. All of them. Not just 50% of them. And an argument could also be made that for the remaining 50% of the kids in a gay home that do have their gender there, they would be in danger of becoming narcissists or in some other grave way devaluing the worth and merit of the opposite gender not represented.

These things are all predictable to cost states tons of money the future. The structure of marriage is important as it turns out, for a secular, unemotional and practical reasons (as well as all the moral and heartfelt ones). You're asking the fed to force states to incentivize a structure known and proven to be deficient in its service to the most important people in marriage: children. (of BOTH genders)..

 

[Skylar]

I beg to differ, oh chronically verbally-abusive "poor weak gay Syriusly"..

The experimental standard enacted to force gay marraige on the states removes states' ability to carve the best formative environment for untold numbers of children into the future. States incentivize marriage to entice the best situation for children. Depriving children of their same gender as a role model is harmful to them, a la Prince's Trust survey conclusion. Gay marriage guarantees that deprivation for 50% of the kids involved. Normal marriage never does.

You're lying again.

Gay marriage in no way guarantees that 50% of the children are deprived of a same gender role model. At most, 50% of the children of gay parents are deprived of a same gender parent. Role models are in no way limited to parents, which has been pointed out to you repeatedly, just like so many of the mistakes and lies you post.

Yes but incentivizing a physical structure for the formative environment of kids that is known to be deficient in significant ways is not what states are in the business doing, doling out incentives (and taking a loss for it) for marriage. A state would be fiscally irresponsible to foster in any way on a daily basis the structural lack of a vital role model and then reward it with financial perks.

That's the only reason states are involved in marriage. They don't want to play the statistics game stacked against the children they're hoping won't become criminals, mentally ill or non-productive. Those outcomes are expensive. So the state wants all children in marriage to have a daily parent/role model of their gender. All of them. Not just 50% of them. And an argument could also be made that for the remaining 50% of the kids in a gay home that do have their gender there, they would be in danger of becoming narcissists or in some other grave way devaluing the worth and merit of the opposite gender not represented.

These things are all predictable to cost states tons of money the future. The structure of marriage is important as it turns out, for a secular, unemotional and practical reasons (as well as all the moral and heartfelt ones). You're asking the fed to force states to incentivize a structure known and proven to be deficient in its service to the most important people in marriage: children. (of BOTH genders)..

How does denying marriage to same sex parents of children help their children?

 

[Montrovant]

I beg to differ, oh chronically verbally-abusive "poor weak gay Syriusly"..

The experimental standard enacted to force gay marraige on the states removes states' ability to carve the best formative environment for untold numbers of children into the future. States incentivize marriage to entice the best situation for children. Depriving children of their same gender as a role model is harmful to them, a la Prince's Trust survey conclusion. Gay marriage guarantees that deprivation for 50% of the kids involved. Normal marriage never does.

You're lying again.

Gay marriage in no way guarantees that 50% of the children are deprived of a same gender role model. At most, 50% of the children of gay parents are deprived of a same gender parent. Role models are in no way limited to parents, which has been pointed out to you repeatedly, just like so many of the mistakes and lies you post.

Yes but incentivizing a physical structure for the formative environment of kids that is known to be deficient in significant ways is not what states are in the business doing, doling out incentives (and taking a loss for it) for marriage. A state would be fiscally irresponsible to foster in any way on a daily basis the structural lack of a vital role model and then reward it with financial perks.

That's the only reason states are involved in marriage. They don't want to play the statistics game stacked against the children they're hoping won't become criminals, mentally ill or non-productive. Those outcomes are expensive. So the state wants all children in marriage to have a daily parent/role model of their gender. All of them. Not just 50% of them. And an argument could also be made that for the remaining 50% of the kids in a gay home that do have their gender there, they would be in danger of becoming narcissists or in some other grave way devaluing the worth and merit of the opposite gender not represented.

These things are all predictable to cost states tons of money the future. The structure of marriage is important as it turns out, for a secular, unemotional and practical reasons (as well as all the moral and heartfelt ones). You're asking the fed to force states to incentivize a structure known and proven to be deficient in its service to the most important people in marriage: children. (of BOTH genders)..

Except that states already do just that by not making children in any way a requirement for marriage and the benefits of marriage. States also grant incentives for simply having children, regardless of marriage status. With those clear facts before us, I'm not sure how anyone can claim that states only incentivize marriage as a function of protecting children.

Further, allowing gays to marry can also be helping children. If the benefits of marriage between heterosexuals help their children, then those same benefits granted to homosexuals should also help any children that those couples have.

Once again, it is clear that your focus is not on helping children, as you claim, but on hurting or denying homosexuals.

 

[Silhouette]

...states already do just that by not making children in any way a requirement for marriage and the benefits of marriage. States also grant incentives for simply having children, regardless of marriage status. With those clear facts before us, I'm not sure how anyone can claim that states only incentivize marriage as a function of protecting children...

States absolutely anctipate children arriving into any marriage. States expect couples to be relatively virginal or childless before they marry. In fact the hope is that they would be since when a child arrives the State hopes its parents are already married and stablized for the sake of the child. You are now trying to rewrite the historical context and expectations of marriage, inserting a lie for LGBT propaganda.

A state most definitely DOES anticipate children will arrive in marriage and that is why it blesses marriage AT ALL fiscally with perks. Otherwise there'd be no reason for states to be in the business of losing that revenue. Marriage is a state-incentive program that attempts to encourage a mother and father for children to be raised within its borders. States have long ago found out that children raised in inferior formative environments do not thrive well; and as such they become costly to the state. So most states incentivize the best known formative environment for kids, one that has been longstanding throughout human history: a marriage between a man and a woman.

The state also reluctantly grants divorce for the sake of children. It's always about children. If you don't believe me, sit in on a family court session or two. If the environment becomes so toxic that it is no longer in the child's/children's best interest, the state reluctantly grants divorce for their sake...again, not for the adult's sake. Adults are already formed, they can move on. The state hopes that they will remarry and a good environment/environments might spring up once again for those children.

It's ALL about children. Always has been. Otherwise there is no reason for states to be involved at all. A state anticipates a husband and wife will either have 1. Natural children of their own. 2. Adopt. 3. Foster That is the reality of the situation. Have fun making up your false alternative explanations of why states are involved in marriage..

 

[Montrovant]

Maybe that's why states originally got involved in marriage, but it's certainly not the reality today.

They expect couples to be virginal or childless?

I've been around divorce. Divorce is granted regardless of whether a couple has children.

You are either lying or just operating under some wildly inaccurate beliefs about marriage and divorce in this country.