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

[Syriusly]

States make a calculated anticipation that children will arrive to a marriage.
It also reluctantly grants divorce for the same reason: the kids. .

No- since some states only allow some marriages based upon the condition that the couple prove that they cannot have children.

And states have no reluctance to grant divorce- hence there is 'no-fault' divorce- the State does not limit divorce at all because of kids.

 

[Syriusly]

States make a calculated anticipation that children will arrive to a marriage. It's the only reason states incentivize them in the first place: to entice the best formative environment for kids: father/mother. A state isn't about enforcing that a marriage has children. That would be fascist. So it does the next best thing: it incentivizes father/mother marriage in the best interest of the kids.

It also reluctantly grants divorce for the same reason: the kids. If the hoped for best environment grows too toxic because of the transient personalities involved, the state grants divorce and really haggles in family court over what situation would be best for the children in custody arrangements. Again, it's about the kids' best interest. From a state's point of view, marriage IS children.

Wrong.

Time and again those hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans have failed to provide objective, documented evidence in support of the idiotic notion that children who live in homes with same-sex parents are somehow 'disadvantaged.'

You care nothing for the welfare of children, having realized you've lost the legal argument you attempt now to engage in fear-mongering and demagoguery by propagating the lie that same-sex couples can't be good parents.

2. What about people who practice homosexuality

How long do they have to practice before they can become full fledged homosexuals?

 

[Syriusly]

I think you're confusing Sy for yourself.

I don't think so.

We'll find out in June, won't we? Expect plenty of panty shitting hysterics from your ilk.

I think the haughtiness of the demonic left will set you up for a thunderous fall.

I think that draping your failing argument in religious language isn't going to make it any more likely to win in June.

If you want a nifty preview of the upcoming ruling, read Scalia's dissent of the Windsor v. US ruling. Pay special attention to the words 'inevitable' and 'beyond mistaking'. And note the utter lack of melodramatic terms like 'demonic'.

Just an FYI.

Legal is only one facet of this. There's also a spiritual facet, you perverts being the forces of Satan, so sure nothing can deprive you of victory. I can focus on whatever facet I want.

You perverts are the forces of darkness, repression and hate.

You are losing and that is a good thing.

 

[Montrovant]

Why then would we make up an imaginary standard that applies to no one, exclude every straight couple, and then apply it exclusively to gays for the sole purpose of excluding them from marriage?

There is no reason. Your proposal is a spectacular equal protection violation. Which is why gay marriage bans keep losing when held to the standards of the 14th amendment.

There is no imaginary standard. There is a Judeo/Christian standard. And there is a Secular/Humanist standard. The last one is the one you want for this nation and the entire world at all costs. It doesn't matter how immoral it may be, or how sick it has been revealed time and time again, or how anti-children and family it is.

So there are only two standards in the world, eh?

 

[LittleNipper]

yet you are creating an imaginary standard that does not exist legally in order to justify banning marriage because you find the sex that the couple may be having as 'icky'.

Sex exists to procreate. And marriage exists so that what is procreated is taken care of, nurtured, and provided with hopefully a fine/noble moral example. Children are not pets, possessions, nor pests. And marriage was never intended to be a free meal ticket or to fulfill some sexual fantasy.

 

[Silhouette]

The state incentivizes marriage only on behalf of children. Gay marraige by its structure deprives boys of fathers and girls of mothers. This is detrimental to them.

 

[Montrovant]

yet you are creating an imaginary standard that does not exist legally in order to justify banning marriage because you find the sex that the couple may be having as 'icky'.

Sex exists to procreate. And marriage exists so that what is procreated is taken care of, nurtured, and provided with hopefully a fine/noble moral example. Children are not pets, possessions, nor pests. And marriage was never intended to be a free meal ticket or to fulfill some sexual fantasy.

When did marriage begin? How do you know the reasoning behind the origins of marriage?

Perhaps more importantly, how does that relate to the subject at hand? Marriage in this country has not been limited to couples with children, so the idea that marriage is just about providing a particular environment for children is demonstrably false.

Also, how does allowing same sex marriage provide anyone with a 'free meal ticket' or the fulfillment of some sexual fantasy? For that matter, if same sex marriage can be considered the fulfillment of a sexual fantasy, what prevents opposite sex marriage from being the same, or being a 'free meal ticket'?

Marriage as an institution solely for the benefit of children may be a fine ideal, but it is not and has not been the reality.

 

[Syriusly]

yet you are creating an imaginary standard that does not exist legally in order to justify banning marriage because you find the sex that the couple may be having as 'icky'.

Sex exists to procreate. And marriage exists so that what is procreated is taken care of, nurtured, and provided with hopefully a fine/noble moral example. Children are not pets, possessions, nor pests. And marriage was never intended to be a free meal ticket or to fulfill some sexual fantasy.

Sex is for procreation- and much, much more. Humans can have sex without procreating, and can choose to have for other reasons than procreation- pleasure, intimacy, bonding.

There is an interesing theory that sex is pleasurable in humans in order to create bonds that do not necessarily exist in other mammals.

Marriage exists for many reasons also- children can be part of marriage- but often are not. A marriage without children is still just as much of a marriage- because marriage should be a lifelong partnership between two people who vow to love and support on another.

Children are not pets, possessions nor pests- it is a shame that so many of my fellow heterosexuals treat them to much like that- there are 100,000 american children awaiting adoption- the majority of them abandoned by their heterosexual parents.

Oh and marriage 'not intended to be a free meal ticket'- well not much is free- but marriage often was intended to be a free meal ticket for the husband marrying the wealthier wife who was too old to have children.

 

[Syriusly]

The state incentivizes marriage only on behalf of children. Gay marraige by its structure deprives boys of fathers and girls of mothers. This is detrimental to them.

"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?"

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

yet you are creating an imaginary standard that does not exist legally in order to justify banning marriage because you find the sex that the couple may be having as 'icky'.

Sex exists to procreate. And marriage exists so that what is procreated is taken care of, nurtured, and provided with hopefully a fine/noble moral example. Children are not pets, possessions, nor pests. And marriage was never intended to be a free meal ticket or to fulfill some sexual fantasy.

^^^^ this.

 

[Skylar]

yet you are creating an imaginary standard that does not exist legally in order to justify banning marriage because you find the sex that the couple may be having as 'icky'.

Sex exists to procreate. And marriage exists so that what is procreated is taken care of, nurtured, and provided with hopefully a fine/noble moral example. Children are not pets, possessions, nor pests. And marriage was never intended to be a free meal ticket or to fulfill some sexual fantasy.

^^^^ this.

Sex can result in procreation. But in almost every instance of it, it doesn't. This is another one of those half assed second tier arguments I was talking about. As it is predicated on the flimsy idea that sex can have only ONE purpose. When in reality, it can have many.

It would be as foolish as insisting that the only valid reason to eat is to fuel the body. But what if you are in the mood for cheese burgers? Or want to have dinner with your family? Or have a sweet tooth? Or are downing a pint of ben and jerry's chunky monkey to sooth a broken heart?

There are many purposes in eating. Just as there in sex. Just as there are in marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

Sex can result in procreation. But in almost every instance of it, it doesn't. This is another one of those half assed second tier arguments I was talking about. As it is predicated on the flimsy idea that sex can have only ONE purpose. When in reality, it can have many.

It would be as foolish as insisting that the only valid reason to eat is to fuel the body. But what if you are in the mood for cheese burgers? Or want to have dinner with your family? Or have a sweet tooth? Or are downing a pint of ben and jerry's chunky monkey to sooth a broken heart?

There are many purposes in eating. Just as there in sex. Just as there are in marriage.

Then you are teetering on the edge of an eating disorder. Very telling that you are urging readers to consider that NOT eating to deal with problematic emotions is "foolish"! Beginning to really get a feel for the inner workings of the LGBT mind here. Do you purge too after a binge? Is that your "eating orientation"?

This thread is about depriving boys of fathers and girls of mothers. Did you have a point about that or would you just like to continue to spin reality to say that it's good and healthy to eat in order to deal with emotions? Have you heard about the obesity and food-addiciton epidemic in the US yet?

 

[Skylar]

Sex can result in procreation. But in almost every instance of it, it doesn't. This is another one of those half assed second tier arguments I was talking about. As it is predicated on the flimsy idea that sex can have only ONE purpose. When in reality, it can have many.

It would be as foolish as insisting that the only valid reason to eat is to fuel the body. But what if you are in the mood for cheese burgers? Or want to have dinner with your family? Or have a sweet tooth? Or are downing a pint of ben and jerry's chunky monkey to sooth a broken heart?

There are many purposes in eating. Just as there in sex. Just as there are in marriage.

Then you are teetering on the edge of an eating disorder.

If you have a hamburger because you're in the mood for a hamburger, you have an eating disorder?!

Laughing....once again, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Eating serves many purposes. As does sex. As does marriage. Simply destroying your argument.

 

[Silhouette]

If you eat ice cream when you are sad, you are flirting with an eating disorder, yes.

Will you talk about depriving boys of fathers and girls of mothers or are we changing the topic of the thread to why you eat to deal with your emotions?

 

[Skylar]

If you eat ice cream when you are sad, you are flirting with an eating disorder, yes.

Says who?

And having a hamburger because you're in the mood? Eating because you want to spent time with family? Going out to an Ethiopian restaurant because you want to try something new?

See, you have to refute ANY purpose other than fueling the body. I only have to demonstrate the value of ONE other purpose, and your argument collapses.

Thus putting the 'half assed' into 'half assed second tier arguments opponents of gay marriage are forced to present'.

 

[Syriusly]

Will you talk about depriving boys of fathers and girls of mothers

When did we start talking about single parents trying to raise children or the children that heterosexuals have abandoned who are waiting for any father or mother?

 

[Skylar]

Will you talk about depriving boys of fathers and girls of mothers

When did we start talking about single parents trying to raise children or the children that heterosexuals have abandoned who are waiting for any father or mother?

How does denying marriage to same sex parents fix the problems you claim concern you?

For example, if you deny marriage to a lesbian couple, does that mean that their children suddenly have opposite sex parents?

Nope. Your 'solution' and your 'problem' have nothing to do with each other. You might as well demand we amputate a foot to treat dandruff, for as little relevance as your proposals have to the issues you claim to address.

 

[Silhouette]

Will you talk about depriving boys of fathers and girls of mothers

When did we start talking about single parents trying to raise children or the children that heterosexuals have abandoned who are waiting for any father or mother?

We are talking about institutionalizing depriving sons of fathers and daughters of mothers "in marriage". We are talking about redacting the word to include an inferior parenting situation to the standard; all to accomodate a neo-cult's sex-depraved utopian mirage....using kids as lab rats while we do...in an experiment we already know the results of (check the OP).

 

[Skylar]

Will you talk about depriving boys of fathers and girls of mothers

When did we start talking about single parents trying to raise children or the children that heterosexuals have abandoned who are waiting for any father or mother?

We are talking about institutionalizing depriving sons of fathers and daughters of mothers "in marriage". We are talking about redacting the word to include an inferior parenting situation to the standard; all to accomodate a neo-cult's sex-depraved utopian mirage....using kids as lab rats while we do...in an experiment we already know the results of (check the OP).

Wow. You can just smell the batshit rising in you. 'Neo-cult's sex depraved utopian mirage' is your new phrase for gay marriage.

Don't ever bother trying to tell us that its not personal animus toward gays that is motivating you. I've got this post bookmarked.

Oh, and the Prince Trust study says nothing you do. It doesn't so much as mention gays. Or gay marriage. Or gay parenting. Nor does it measure the effects of any kind of parenting. Nor does it claim that the only positive same sex role model is a parent.

You hallucinated all of that. And your hallucinations are irrelevant.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, it's a cult. Quite a lot of people see it for what it is. I know it doesn't help your argument that people see it for what it is, but that doesn't erase reality.