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

[LittleNipper]

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

There is an immediate psychological injury to a boy who has no one to call "Dad" and a girl who has no one to call "Mom" in an experimental marriage.

Which is worse, longterm?

And again- what has that to do with marriage?

Whether a gay couple who is raising children is married or not- their children will call them whatever they end up calling them.

There is an immediate harm to the children whose parents are denied marriage- there is no harm to children whose parents are allowed to marry.

The sexual act of two homosexuals cannot produce children! The husband who reneges on his marriage vows and leaves his wife for another male or female should lose the right to his children but should have visitation privileges. Likewise, the woman who does the same thing should be treated the very same.

The point is that homosexual relations cannot produce children and so they (homosexuals) should not have children as a "couple." Insurance should not be allowed to be used so homosexual couples can have children, as it is not a medical problem but a psychological one that prevents natural fertilization. Insurance should only be used to correct medical issues and never for fulfilling biologically unnatural personal demands.

There is also the issue that a child really should have a right eventually to know who his/her birth mother or sperm donor is. If not to find out about their own actual ancestry, then to consider any future health issues.

 

[Skylar]

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

There is an immediate psychological injury to a boy who has no one to call "Dad" and a girl who has no one to call "Mom" in an experimental marriage.

Which is worse, longterm?

And again- what has that to do with marriage?

Whether a gay couple who is raising children is married or not- their children will call them whatever they end up calling them.

There is an immediate harm to the children whose parents are denied marriage- there is no harm to children whose parents are allowed to marry.

The sexual act of two homosexuals cannot produce children!

And? Infertile and childless couples by the millions are allowed to marry or remain married. And in fact no one is required to be able to procreate to get married.

Why would we exempt gays from marriage for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

There is no reason.

 

[LittleNipper]

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

There is an immediate psychological injury to a boy who has no one to call "Dad" and a girl who has no one to call "Mom" in an experimental marriage.

Which is worse, longterm?

And again- what has that to do with marriage?

Whether a gay couple who is raising children is married or not- their children will call them whatever they end up calling them.

There is an immediate harm to the children whose parents are denied marriage- there is no harm to children whose parents are allowed to marry.

The sexual act of two homosexuals cannot produce children!

And? Infertile and childless couples by the millions are allowed to marry or remain married. And in fact no one is required to be able to procreate to get married.

Why would we exempt gays from marriage for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

There is no reason.

Why not buy a drunk some booze? Does he have a medical/psychological problem? Should we as a moral society promote his behavior pattern because that is what he wants to be ----God made him that way? How is homosexuality any different?

My wife and I were married 9 years before we discovered we had a medical problem that was hampering us having a baby. Most male/female couples have idea if they are infertile or not when they marry. It takes time. Homosexuals know the obvious or they have to be mentally deranged. In either case, society owes it to future generations not to sponsor and promote "anything goes" as natural and acceptable.

Two men wish to live together, that's entirely on them. They should not expect society at large to fulfill their desire to feel normal. I would never disrespect a homosexual couple; however, I would not attend their wedding, nor ever consider them married. I would certainly speak to them and help them as fellow humans; however, I would never legitimize their sexual behavior, no matter what the government thinks. The very same is true of adultery and fornication. I see no difference.

 

[Montrovant]

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

There is an immediate psychological injury to a boy who has no one to call "Dad" and a girl who has no one to call "Mom" in an experimental marriage.

Which is worse, longterm?

And again- what has that to do with marriage?

Whether a gay couple who is raising children is married or not- their children will call them whatever they end up calling them.

There is an immediate harm to the children whose parents are denied marriage- there is no harm to children whose parents are allowed to marry.

The sexual act of two homosexuals cannot produce children!

And? Infertile and childless couples by the millions are allowed to marry or remain married. And in fact no one is required to be able to procreate to get married.

Why would we exempt gays from marriage for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

There is no reason.

Why not buy a drunk some booze? Does he have a medical/psychological problem? Should we as a moral society promote his behavior pattern because that is what he wants to be ----God made him that way? How is homosexuality any different?

My wife and I were married 9 years before we discovered we had a medical problem that was hampering us having a baby. Most male/female couples have idea if they are infertile or not when they marry. It takes time. Homosexuals know the obvious or they have to be mentally deranged. In either case, society owes it to future generations not to sponsor and promote "anything goes" as natural and acceptable.

Two men wish to live together, that's entirely on them. They should not expect society at large to fulfill their desire to feel normal. I would never disrespect a homosexual couple; however, I would not attend their wedding, nor ever consider them married. I would certainly speak to them and help them as fellow humans; however, I would never legitimize their sexual behavior, no matter what the government thinks. The very same is true of adultery and fornication. I see no difference.

Are drunks prevented from marrying?

And why is normalcy so often brought up when same sex marriages (or homosexuality in general) is discussed? Are all heterosexual marriages or relationships so very similar to one another?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

LITTLENIPPER SAID:

“Two men wish to live together, that's entirely on them. They should not expect society at large to fulfill their desire to feel normal.”

They are normal, and currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, where recognizing their right to marry comports with the Constitution and its case law.

That you perceive them as 'abnormal' is subjective and irrelevant, and not justification to deny them their civil rights.

 

[Silhouette]

And why is normalcy so often brought up when same sex marriages (or homosexuality in general) is discussed? Are all heterosexual marriages or relationships so very similar to one another?

As far as children are concerned all heterosexual marriages, in other words all that we understand the word marriage to be, provide all children involved with a mother and a father...a thing a homosexual "marriage" can never do. Ever. It is structurally impossible.

 

[LittleNipper]

LITTLENIPPER SAID:

“Two men wish to live together, that's entirely on them. They should not expect society at large to fulfill their desire to feel normal.”

They are normal, and currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, where recognizing their right to marry comports with the Constitution and its case law.

That you perceive them as 'abnormal' is subjective and irrelevant, and not justification to deny them their civil rights.

Anal abuse is an unhealthy and dangerous practice. One that can led to serous complications. And oral sex is not necessary to a healthy active heterosexual relationship. Homosexuality was and is still considered a dysfunctional behavior pattern by the medical profession ----- as has always been the case.

 

[LittleNipper]

There is an immediate psychological injury to a boy who has no one to call "Dad" and a girl who has no one to call "Mom" in an experimental marriage.

Which is worse, longterm?

And again- what has that to do with marriage?

Whether a gay couple who is raising children is married or not- their children will call them whatever they end up calling them.

There is an immediate harm to the children whose parents are denied marriage- there is no harm to children whose parents are allowed to marry.

The sexual act of two homosexuals cannot produce children!

And? Infertile and childless couples by the millions are allowed to marry or remain married. And in fact no one is required to be able to procreate to get married.

Why would we exempt gays from marriage for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

There is no reason.

Why not buy a drunk some booze? Does he have a medical/psychological problem? Should we as a moral society promote his behavior pattern because that is what he wants to be ----God made him that way? How is homosexuality any different?

My wife and I were married 9 years before we discovered we had a medical problem that was hampering us having a baby. Most male/female couples have idea if they are infertile or not when they marry. It takes time. Homosexuals know the obvious or they have to be mentally deranged. In either case, society owes it to future generations not to sponsor and promote "anything goes" as natural and acceptable.

Two men wish to live together, that's entirely on them. They should not expect society at large to fulfill their desire to feel normal. I would never disrespect a homosexual couple; however, I would not attend their wedding, nor ever consider them married. I would certainly speak to them and help them as fellow humans; however, I would never legitimize their sexual behavior, no matter what the government thinks. The very same is true of adultery and fornication. I see no difference.

Are drunks prevented from marrying?

And why is normalcy so often brought up when same sex marriages (or homosexuality in general) is discussed? Are all heterosexual marriages or relationships so very similar to one another?

I know of no caring mother or father who would wish a drunk as a spouse for any of their children. I would imagine that they would do everything in their power to dissuade that child from making such a mistake.

 

[Silhouette]

Even if two gay people were the second coming of Christ in temperament and parenting skills, the very structure of their "marriage" would detrimentally deprive a boy of a father and a girl of a mother. There's no getting around it.

 

[Montrovant]

And again- what has that to do with marriage?

Whether a gay couple who is raising children is married or not- their children will call them whatever they end up calling them.

There is an immediate harm to the children whose parents are denied marriage- there is no harm to children whose parents are allowed to marry.

The sexual act of two homosexuals cannot produce children!

And? Infertile and childless couples by the millions are allowed to marry or remain married. And in fact no one is required to be able to procreate to get married.

Why would we exempt gays from marriage for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

There is no reason.

Why not buy a drunk some booze? Does he have a medical/psychological problem? Should we as a moral society promote his behavior pattern because that is what he wants to be ----God made him that way? How is homosexuality any different?

My wife and I were married 9 years before we discovered we had a medical problem that was hampering us having a baby. Most male/female couples have idea if they are infertile or not when they marry. It takes time. Homosexuals know the obvious or they have to be mentally deranged. In either case, society owes it to future generations not to sponsor and promote "anything goes" as natural and acceptable.

Two men wish to live together, that's entirely on them. They should not expect society at large to fulfill their desire to feel normal. I would never disrespect a homosexual couple; however, I would not attend their wedding, nor ever consider them married. I would certainly speak to them and help them as fellow humans; however, I would never legitimize their sexual behavior, no matter what the government thinks. The very same is true of adultery and fornication. I see no difference.

Are drunks prevented from marrying?

And why is normalcy so often brought up when same sex marriages (or homosexuality in general) is discussed? Are all heterosexual marriages or relationships so very similar to one another?

I know of no caring mother or father who would wish a drunk as a spouse for any of their children. I would imagine that they would do everything in their power to dissuade that child from making such a mistake.

Which didn't actually answer my question. No, drunks are not prevented from marrying. And certainly there are plenty of parents out there who are in heterosexual relationships and are drunks.

But since that isn't as 'icky' as people find homosexuality, it's not something you will find people clamoring for as far as marriage rights.

 

[Syriusly]

Even if two gay people were the second coming of Christ in temperament and parenting skills, the very structure of their "marriage" would detrimentally deprive a boy of a father and a girl of a mother. There's no getting around it.

How would marriage deprive a child of anything?

Still waiting for that simple answer.

If Joanne and Jill are raising their two daughters- unmarried- and then get married- how does that harm those children?

Is it marriage that harms the children(in your mind) or children being raised by gay couples that harms children(in your mind)?

 

[Syriusly]

LITTLENIPPER SAID:

“Two men wish to live together, that's entirely on them. They should not expect society at large to fulfill their desire to feel normal.”

They are normal, and currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, where recognizing their right to marry comports with the Constitution and its case law.

That you perceive them as 'abnormal' is subjective and irrelevant, and not justification to deny them their civil rights.

Anal abuse is an unhealthy and dangerous practice. One that can led to serous complications. And oral sex is not necessary to a healthy active heterosexual relationship. Homosexuality was and is still considered a dysfunctional behavior pattern by the medical profession ----- as has always been the case.

'anal abuse'? Millions of heterosexuals participate in anal intercourse.
Oral sex is not necessary- but overwhelmingly desired by most of the population.
Homosexuality is not considered a dysfunctional behavior pattern by the medical profession.

Anything else?

 

[Syriusly]

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

There is an immediate psychological injury to a boy who has no one to call "Dad" and a girl who has no one to call "Mom" in an experimental marriage.

Which is worse, longterm?

And again- what has that to do with marriage?

Whether a gay couple who is raising children is married or not- their children will call them whatever they end up calling them.

There is an immediate harm to the children whose parents are denied marriage- there is no harm to children whose parents are allowed to marry.

The sexual act of two homosexuals cannot produce children!


The point is that homosexual relations cannot produce children and so they (homosexuals) should not have children as a "couple." .

But homosexuals do have children. That is a fact. The same way that women whose husbands cannot procreate with them do. The same way that heterosexuals who adopt do.

So once again:

Jill and Joanne have two children together.

How are their children harmed by letting Jill and Joanne legally marry?

We already have Justice Kennedy pointing out that there is an immediate legal harm to the children by not allowing them to marry- so what is the harm to the children by allowing them to marry?

 

[Skylar]

You're not going to get an answer, Sy....as there is none.

Marriage has no relevance to the outcomes Sil is imagining. Worse, the courts have already found immediate legal harm caused to the children of same sex couples when their parents aren't allowed to marry, describing it in elaborate detail. And even Sil can't articulate any benefit to balance it in denying marriage to same sex parents.

So Sil's proposal is all harm to children of same sex couples. And no benefits.

And Sil knows it.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

The difference between those of us who favor marriage equality for homosexual couples, and bigots like yourself is that if the Supreme Court does not find in favor of marriage equality for homosexual couples- I will not be calliing the Justice 'black robed fascists' as you will be doing if the Supreme Court doesn't rule the way you want.

Yes you will.

 

[Skylar]

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.

The difference between those of us who favor marriage equality for homosexual couples, and bigots like yourself is that if the Supreme Court does not find in favor of marriage equality for homosexual couples- I will not be calliing the Justice 'black robed fascists' as you will be doing if the Supreme Court doesn't rule the way you want.

Yes you will.

I think you're confusing Sy for yourself.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

There is an immediate psychological injury to a boy who has no one to call "Dad" and a girl who has no one to call "Mom" in an experimental marriage.

Which is worse, longterm?

And again- what has that to do with marriage?

Whether a gay couple who is raising children is married or not- their children will call them whatever they end up calling them.

There is an immediate harm to the children whose parents are denied marriage- there is no harm to children whose parents are allowed to marry.

The sexual act of two homosexuals cannot produce children!

And? Infertile and childless couples by the millions are allowed to marry or remain married. And in fact no one is required to be able to procreate to get married.

Why would we exempt gays from marriage for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

There is no reason.

Because gays propose to create a domestic structure that deliberately precludes children when in fact both are fertile human beings and could have children in a real marriage. Not nearly the same as an unfortunate wedded couple who discover that one of them is infertile.

 

[Skylar]

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

There is an immediate psychological injury to a boy who has no one to call "Dad" and a girl who has no one to call "Mom" in an experimental marriage.

Which is worse, longterm?

And again- what has that to do with marriage?

Whether a gay couple who is raising children is married or not- their children will call them whatever they end up calling them.

There is an immediate harm to the children whose parents are denied marriage- there is no harm to children whose parents are allowed to marry.

The sexual act of two homosexuals cannot produce children!

And? Infertile and childless couples by the millions are allowed to marry or remain married. And in fact no one is required to be able to procreate to get married.

Why would we exempt gays from marriage for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

There is no reason.

Because gays propose to create a domestic structure that deliberately precludes children when in fact both are fertile human beings and could have children in a real marriage. Not nearly the same as an unfortunate wedded couple who discover that one of them is infertile.

Again, no one is required to be able to have kids to get married. So why would we exclude gays from marriage for not being able to have kids?

The standard you're citing doesn't exist.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

There is an immediate psychological injury to a boy who has no one to call "Dad" and a girl who has no one to call "Mom" in an experimental marriage.

Which is worse, longterm?

And again- what has that to do with marriage?

Whether a gay couple who is raising children is married or not- their children will call them whatever they end up calling them.

There is an immediate harm to the children whose parents are denied marriage- there is no harm to children whose parents are allowed to marry.

The sexual act of two homosexuals cannot produce children!

And? Infertile and childless couples by the millions are allowed to marry or remain married. And in fact no one is required to be able to procreate to get married.

Why would we exempt gays from marriage for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

There is no reason.

Because gays propose to create a domestic structure that deliberately precludes children when in fact both are fertile human beings and could have children in a real marriage. Not nearly the same as an unfortunate wedded couple who discover that one of them is infertile.

Again, no one is required to be able to have kids to get married. So why would we exclude gays from marriage for not being able to have kids?

The standard you're citing doesn't exist.

Because they chose a structure that makes kids impossible.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

The difference between those of us who favor marriage equality for homosexual couples, and bigots like yourself is that if the Supreme Court does not find in favor of marriage equality for homosexual couples- I will not be calliing the Justice 'black robed fascists' as you will be doing if the Supreme Court doesn't rule the way you want.

Yes you will.

I think you're confusing Sy for yourself.

I don't think so.