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

[Syriusly]

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

YOu can beg as much as you want.

But you won't answer the question:


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]

...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.

You just pull this stuff out of your butt.

The State doesn't care and has no such expectation.

 

[Silhouette]

Then why do states lose money on perks for marriage?

Related question, why do family courts devote so much emphasis in outcomes on behalf of the children?

 

[Skylar]

Then why do states lose money on perks for marriage?

Related question, why do family courts devote so much emphasis in outcomes on behalf of the children?

Why do you spend so little time on the outcome on behalf of children? For example, how does your proposal of denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? Because the courts went into elaborate detail about how denying marriage to their parents hurt these children.

Or.....do you ignore these children and their outcomes?

 

[Silhouette]

Then why do states lose money on perks for marriage?
Related question, why do family courts devote so much emphasis in outcomes on behalf of the children?

Why do you spend so little time on the outcome on behalf of children? For example, how does your proposal of denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? Because the courts went into elaborate detail about how denying marriage to their parents hurt these children.

Or.....do you ignore these children and their outcomes?

My proposal is to return the question to the states where this brand new experiment's debate and decision belongs. When lifestyles are structurally incapable of providing a mother and father to children in the home, the state having to deal with the ultimate outcome of that fiscally and otherwise gets to weigh in first and finally.

Premise alert: sexual lifestyles do not equal race.

The Court will revisit the question of harm to children either way this time around and not hear just the spoon-fed lopsided all-APA funded "science" (see the OP on CQR). They must also read the Prince's Trust survey, the largest of its kind and not one emanating from such an obviously heavily-biased APA.

 

[Montrovant]

Then why do states lose money on perks for marriage?
Related question, why do family courts devote so much emphasis in outcomes on behalf of the children?

Why do you spend so little time on the outcome on behalf of children? For example, how does your proposal of denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? Because the courts went into elaborate detail about how denying marriage to their parents hurt these children.

Or.....do you ignore these children and their outcomes?

My proposal is to return the question to the states where this brand new experiment's debate and decision belongs. When lifestyles are structurally incapable of providing a mother and father to children in the home, the state having to deal with the ultimate outcome of that fiscally and otherwise gets to weigh in first and finally.

Premise alert: sexual lifestyles do not equal race.

The Court will revisit the question of harm to children either way this time around and not hear just the spoon-fed lopsided all-APA funded "science" (see the OP on CQR). They must also read the Prince's Trust survey, the largest of its kind and not one emanating from such an obviously heavily-biased APA.

Oh, the court 'must' read the Prince's Trust Youth Index, must they? You are hilarious.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, they absolutely must read the largest survey of its kind on the detrimental effects of children growing up without their own gender as an adult role model. Your group has already said that children must be one of the prime considerations of this Hearing on redacting the word "marriage". It's the reason you pushed to gain momentum. Will you turn your back on them now? No?

Then you surely must realize there will be two sides to the debate. Physically, structurally, inherently without any commentary on the participant's integrity or ability to parent in the general sense, gay marriage deprives 50% of the children involved their same gender as a parent. And as I said, this is a brand new psychological concept to their formative years and marriage. Even you weren't subjected as a lab rat to it. Our future's children cannot vote. So you'd better believe the Court must leave no stone unturned in weighing the pros and cons from both sides. They must especially not ignore the largest survey of its kind that refers structurally and directly to boys who have nobody to call "Dad" and girls who have nobody to call "Mom"..

The Court must not digest solely a diet of spoon-fed and unchallenged data from the Congressionally-censured APA and its dubious new "science" (small samples, preference to words over numbers, audited-conclusions).. The Prince's Trust survey offers that diversity the Court must ingest before rendering a decision..

 

[Montrovant]

Yes, they absolutely must read the largest survey of its kind on the detrimental effects of children growing up without their own gender as an adult role model. Your group has already said that children must be one of the prime considerations of this Hearing on redacting the word "marriage". It's the reason you pushed to gain momentum. Will you turn your back on them now? No?

Then you surely must realize there will be two sides to the debate. Physically, structurally, inherently without any commentary on the participant's integrity or ability to parent in the general sense, gay marriage deprives 50% of the children involved their same gender as a parent. And as I said, this is a brand new psychological concept to their formative years and marriage. Even you weren't subjected as a lab rat to it. Our future's children cannot vote. So you'd better believe the Court must leave no stone unturned in weighing the pros and cons from both sides. They must especially not ignore the largest survey of its kind that refers structurally and directly to boys who have nobody to call "Dad" and girls who have nobody to call "Mom"..

The Court must not digest solely a diet of spoon-fed and unchallenged data from the Congressionally-censured APA and its dubious new "science" (small samples, preference to words over numbers, audited-conclusions).. The Prince's Trust survey offers that diversity the Court must ingest before rendering a decision..

I am part of no group who did any of the things you claim that I know of.

The USSC does not need to do anything you want it to. The Prince's Trust Youth Index is not and has not been about children growing up without same gender role models. The one which you so often link to DID take same gender role models into account as a factor in overall wellbeing of the youths surveyed, but it is not the thrust of the survey. Moreover, the survey discusses not just same gender role models, but positive same gender role models. The Index never specifies that a parent is the only adult who can be a positive same gender role model. And finally, there is never mention of same sex marriage nor homosexuality.

The you think the Supreme Court MUST do anything just because you find it important is funny, but obviously incorrect.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Then why do states lose money on perks for marriage?

Related question, why do family courts devote so much emphasis in outcomes on behalf of the children?

Why do you spend so little time on the outcome on behalf of children? For example, how does your proposal of denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? Because the courts went into elaborate detail about how denying marriage to their parents hurt these children.

Or.....do you ignore these children and their outcomes?

Yes, protecting children from a freak show that confounds, God, Man, and Nature is helping them. They're better off in a single parent home.

 

[Skylar]

Then why do states lose money on perks for marriage?
Related question, why do family courts devote so much emphasis in outcomes on behalf of the children?

Why do you spend so little time on the outcome on behalf of children? For example, how does your proposal of denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? Because the courts went into elaborate detail about how denying marriage to their parents hurt these children.

Or.....do you ignore these children and their outcomes?

My proposal is to return the question to the states where this brand new experiment's debate and decision belongs. When lifestyles are structurally incapable of providing a mother and father to children in the home, the state having to deal with the ultimate outcome of that fiscally and otherwise gets to weigh in first and finally.

And how does your proposal of denying gay marriage to same sex parents benefit their children?

You said that marriage is all about children. You said you're advocate of children. Well...advocate. Tell us how your demands benefit these children.

Or you can demonstrate for a least the 20th time that you don't give a fiddler's fuck about any child. That children are nothing but a tool for you to use. And the moment you can't use a child to attack gays, you'll completely ignore them.

Exactly as you ignoring the children of same sex couples now.

 

[Skylar]

Then why do states lose money on perks for marriage?
Related question, why do family courts devote so much emphasis in outcomes on behalf of the children?

Why do you spend so little time on the outcome on behalf of children? For example, how does your proposal of denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? Because the courts went into elaborate detail about how denying marriage to their parents hurt these children.

Or.....do you ignore these children and their outcomes?

My proposal is to return the question to the states where this brand new experiment's debate and decision belongs. When lifestyles are structurally incapable of providing a mother and father to children in the home, the state having to deal with the ultimate outcome of that fiscally and otherwise gets to weigh in first and finally.

Premise alert: sexual lifestyles do not equal race.

The Court will revisit the question of harm to children either way this time around and not hear just the spoon-fed lopsided all-APA funded "science" (see the OP on CQR). They must also read the Prince's Trust survey, the largest of its kind and not one emanating from such an obviously heavily-biased APA.

Oh, the court 'must' read the Prince's Trust Youth Index, must they? You are hilarious.

Oh, Silo is just full of various things that he insists the courts MUST do or the courts can NEVER do. According to him.

What he hasn't quite figured out is that he doesn't make any of these rules. And the courts are bound none of what he makes up or hallucinates.

But he will in June.

 

[Skylar]

Then why do states lose money on perks for marriage?

Related question, why do family courts devote so much emphasis in outcomes on behalf of the children?

Why do you spend so little time on the outcome on behalf of children? For example, how does your proposal of denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? Because the courts went into elaborate detail about how denying marriage to their parents hurt these children.

Or.....do you ignore these children and their outcomes?

Yes, protecting children from a freak show that confounds, God, Man, and Nature is helping them. They're better off in a single parent home.

And you demonstrate again why same sex marriage opponents are so thoroughly fucked in court; You can't argue your actual motivations and beliefs. As they aren't accepted as valid in court.

So you're left with a series of half assed, second tier arguments that are laughed out of court with almost perfect regularity.

As for your personal religious beliefs on homosexuality, you're welcome to them. But neither I nor the courts really give a shit.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, they absolutely must read the largest survey of its kind on the detrimental effects of children growing up without their own gender as an adult role model.

Um, no...they don't. First, the court's aren't obligated to do anything just because you say they are. You're nobody. Nothing you insist has any legal relevance, nor creates any obligation on anyone.

Second, the Prince Trust study doesn't say that. No where in the Prince Trust Study does it even mention same sex parenting, measure any kind of parenting, mention gay marriage, or mentions homosexuals.

You hallucinated all of that.

Nor did the Prince Trust study say that parents on the only source of 'good same sex role models'. You hallucinated that too.

And the court's aren't bound to your hallucination.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Then why do states lose money on perks for marriage?

Related question, why do family courts devote so much emphasis in outcomes on behalf of the children?

Why do you spend so little time on the outcome on behalf of children? For example, how does your proposal of denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? Because the courts went into elaborate detail about how denying marriage to their parents hurt these children.

Or.....do you ignore these children and their outcomes?

Yes, protecting children from a freak show that confounds, God, Man, and Nature is helping them. They're better off in a single parent home.

And you demonstrate again why same sex marriage opponents are so thoroughly fucked in court; You can't argue your actual motivations and beliefs. As they aren't accepted as valid in court.

So you're left with a series of half assed, second tier arguments that are laughed out of court with almost perfect regularity.

As for your personal religious beliefs on homosexuality, you're welcome to them. But neither I nor the courts really give a shit.

The people who believe as I do will present it in court in legaleze. I wasn't presenting a legal argument, you jackass.

 

[Skylar]

Then why do states lose money on perks for marriage?

Related question, why do family courts devote so much emphasis in outcomes on behalf of the children?

Why do you spend so little time on the outcome on behalf of children? For example, how does your proposal of denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? Because the courts went into elaborate detail about how denying marriage to their parents hurt these children.

Or.....do you ignore these children and their outcomes?

Yes, protecting children from a freak show that confounds, God, Man, and Nature is helping them. They're better off in a single parent home.

And you demonstrate again why same sex marriage opponents are so thoroughly fucked in court; You can't argue your actual motivations and beliefs. As they aren't accepted as valid in court.

So you're left with a series of half assed, second tier arguments that are laughed out of court with almost perfect regularity.

As for your personal religious beliefs on homosexuality, you're welcome to them. But neither I nor the courts really give a shit.

The people who believe as I do will present it in court in legaleze.

They've tried. The result was win-loss record of 2 out of 46 cases.

With the USSC preserving every lower court ruling overturning gay marriage bans. Without exception.

And the USSC denying stay to every state attempting to defend gay marriage bans. Without exception.

As I said, half assed second string arguments that are laughed out of court.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, Silo is just full of various things that he insists the courts MUST do or the courts can NEVER do. According to him.

What he hasn't quite figured out is that he doesn't make any of these rules. And the courts are bound none of what he makes up or hallucinates.

But he will in June.

You're the ones insisting this is about children. So since we both agree on that point, we will hold the magnifying glass up to this country's potentially first generation of kids where 50% involved in gay marriage would have no role model of the same gender as a parent, and this being forced by the fed upon the states to honor/incentivize.

That magnifying glass isn't going to only be APA funded studies relying on "words over numbers" and cult-audited conclusions. The Prince's Trust must have a voice. If you're cock-sure it doesn't apply to gay marriage, you wouldn't be objecting so vehemently to it passing before the Justices' eyes..

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Then why do states lose money on perks for marriage?

Related question, why do family courts devote so much emphasis in outcomes on behalf of the children?

Why do you spend so little time on the outcome on behalf of children? For example, how does your proposal of denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? Because the courts went into elaborate detail about how denying marriage to their parents hurt these children.

Or.....do you ignore these children and their outcomes?

Yes, protecting children from a freak show that confounds, God, Man, and Nature is helping them. They're better off in a single parent home.

And you demonstrate again why same sex marriage opponents are so thoroughly fucked in court; You can't argue your actual motivations and beliefs. As they aren't accepted as valid in court.

So you're left with a series of half assed, second tier arguments that are laughed out of court with almost perfect regularity.

As for your personal religious beliefs on homosexuality, you're welcome to them. But neither I nor the courts really give a shit.

The people who believe as I do will present it in court in legaleze.

They've tried. The result was win-loss record of 2 out of 46 cases.

With the USSC preserving every lower court ruling overturning gay marriage bans. Without exception.

And the USSC denying stay to every state attempting to defend gay marriage bans. Without exception.

As I said, half assed second string arguments that are laughed out of court.

All the bigger the shock to you homos when the Supreme Court's final decision returns the issue to the states where it belongs.

 

[Skylar]

So since we both agree on that point, we will hold the magnifying glass up to this country's potentially first generation of kids where 50% involved in gay marriage would have no role model of the same gender as a parent, and this being forced by the fed upon the states to honor/incentivize.

Gays and lesbians have kids anyway. Denying them marriage doesn't magically mean their children have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that their children will never have married parents.

So how does denying marriage to same sex parents benefit those children?

And be specific.

That magnifying glass isn't going to only be APA funded studies relying on "words over numbers" and cult-audited conclusions.

You've ignored every study that affirms that the children of same sex couples are fine. APA studies, University of Melbourne Studies, University of Souther California Studies, American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy studies, every expert, every source....regardless of APA affiliation, sample size, methodology, or country of origin.

If a study says that the children of same sex couples are fine, you ignore it. But why would we or any rational person ignore them?

There is no reason.

The Prince's Trust must have a voice.

The Prince Trust study never so much as mentions gays, gay marriage, same sex parenting, nor measures the effects of any type of parenting.

You hallucinated all of that. And the courts aren't bound to your hallucinations.

 

[Skylar]

Why do you spend so little time on the outcome on behalf of children? For example, how does your proposal of denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? Because the courts went into elaborate detail about how denying marriage to their parents hurt these children.

Or.....do you ignore these children and their outcomes?

Yes, protecting children from a freak show that confounds, God, Man, and Nature is helping them. They're better off in a single parent home.

And you demonstrate again why same sex marriage opponents are so thoroughly fucked in court; You can't argue your actual motivations and beliefs. As they aren't accepted as valid in court.

So you're left with a series of half assed, second tier arguments that are laughed out of court with almost perfect regularity.

As for your personal religious beliefs on homosexuality, you're welcome to them. But neither I nor the courts really give a shit.

The people who believe as I do will present it in court in legaleze.

They've tried. The result was win-loss record of 2 out of 46 cases.

With the USSC preserving every lower court ruling overturning gay marriage bans. Without exception.

And the USSC denying stay to every state attempting to defend gay marriage bans. Without exception.

As I said, half assed second string arguments that are laughed out of court.

All the bigger the shock to you homos when the Supreme Court's final decision returns the issue to the states where it belongs.

Unless it doesn't. We'll see.

Personally, I think June is going to be a lovely month.

 

[hipeter924]

Why do you spend so little time on the outcome on behalf of children? For example, how does your proposal of denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? Because the courts went into elaborate detail about how denying marriage to their parents hurt these children.

Or.....do you ignore these children and their outcomes?

Yes, protecting children from a freak show that confounds, God, Man, and Nature is helping them. They're better off in a single parent home.

And you demonstrate again why same sex marriage opponents are so thoroughly fucked in court; You can't argue your actual motivations and beliefs. As they aren't accepted as valid in court.

So you're left with a series of half assed, second tier arguments that are laughed out of court with almost perfect regularity.

As for your personal religious beliefs on homosexuality, you're welcome to them. But neither I nor the courts really give a shit.

The people who believe as I do will present it in court in legaleze.

They've tried. The result was win-loss record of 2 out of 46 cases.

With the USSC preserving every lower court ruling overturning gay marriage bans. Without exception.

And the USSC denying stay to every state attempting to defend gay marriage bans. Without exception.

As I said, half assed second string arguments that are laughed out of court.

All the bigger the shock to you homos when the Supreme Court's final decision returns the issue to the states where it belongs.

You mean, same-sex marriage opponents losing hands down, or pants down rather, several states at a time. As even if the Supreme Court argued 'state rights', it still wouldn't stop state referendums, which have already been carried out in several states.

Though, that won't be the case. They will either uphold previous decisions, or move to stop some states from using state government organs to stop same-sex marriages within those states.

The only way same-sex marriage opponents could win, is by holding all federal branches of government, and trying to pass a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage.

But the Supreme Court would probably strike it down, and it wouldn't pass the Senate, so I wouldn't try that path - especially as the uproar would hand back to Democrats the House or the Senate. The majority of the US public is supportive of same-sex marriage, and enough swing states would turn against the Republicans if they tried anything too drastic.