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

[Silhouette]

Yes, by all means. Let's make marriage between homos legal so we can legitimize the terrible decisions they have made all their lives that will adversely affect their children.

1. Adversely affect their children according to who? 2, And even following your reasoning, your logic doesn't work. Gays and lesbians are having kids anyway. It doesn't matter if you 'legitimize them' with marriage or not, they're still having kids. 3. So denying same sex marriage doesn't mean these kids magically have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that these children can NEVER have married parents.
4. And that helps these children.....how?

1. Adversely affecting according to the Prince's Trust survey, the largest of its kind. Consult those details in the OP.

2. Gays and lesbians can never have children. Only heteros can produce offspring. No baby has ever landed on the earth as a product of male/male or female/female sexual coupling. So in any scenario involving a child around a gay pair, that child is never with its two parents, or any two people that could ever be father and mother to it.

3. Kids always have opposite gendered parents. Always. There is never an exception to that. Where those kids wind up though is another matter...

4. States incentivizing only the best formative environment for kids (see #1.) helps children by encouraging a brass ring for men and women to reach for so that children find themselves in homes more often (instead of less often) with a father and a mother present and necessary for their best sense of esteem and to feel like they have a place in the world.

5. Gay homes will strip 50% of the children in them of that feeling of having a place in the world. Read the Prince's Trust survey for details of precisely how that is. You will find those links and excerpts in the OP.

6. A single parent home even is preferable to a gay one in that a hetero single parent would still be open to/reaching out to/dating a member of the opposite gender. Any child opposite the parent's gender would see that at least they mattered still (this is the simple way the child's formative mind processes the world). A gay home would daily send the message: "your gender NEVER matters". It would be a form of institutionalized child-abuse.


We cannot force states to participated in a lab rat experiment using their children as the test subjects when we ALREADY KNOW 50% of them will fall to peril..

 

[Montrovant]

Oh look, more lies about what the Prince's Trust Index says. Also, as I've brought up before, it's strange that if gay parents and/or gay marriage are so horrible for children according to the survey, that they haven't continued to ask about same gender role models in subsequent Indexes.

Have you ever actually said something factual about the survey you have linked so many times?

 

[Silhouette]

What is a fact about the survey is that kids who grow up without their own gender represented as a role model, suffer psychologically.

Another fact is that 50% of children involved in the lab experiment for child development called "gay marriage" will be without their same gender as a role model.

Worse, the third fact is that the daily (institutionally-backed by federal law if the pending case goes as the Court is telling the public it will before the acual Hearing on the merits) representation of "gay marriage" to those 50% of children will be "your gender does not matter structurally AT ALL to a functioning adult society".

 

[mdk]

Oh look, more lies about what the Prince's Trust Index says. Also, as I've brought up before, it's strange that if gay parents and/or gay marriage are so horrible for children according to the survey, that they haven't continued to ask about same gender role models in subsequent Indexes.

Have you ever actually said something factual about the survey you have linked so many times?

Yes, the study is one of the largest of it's kind and it did originate from the UK, other than that she is misrepresenting the study's findings in a sad attempt to convince herself that her position is valid.

Before the Prince's Trust became her spam of the month she was harping on about a poll from another thread and claiming the results meant that 80% of the participates actual oppose gay marriage. Never mind the fact that the question in the poll asks if you would support a church being forced to marry gay couple and not about supporting gay marriage. Opponents and proponents agree that churches should not be forced to marry anyone against their wishes but she spammed it for weeks.

 

[Montrovant]

What is a fact about the survey is that kids who grow up without their own gender represented as a role model, suffer psychologically.

Another fact is that 50% of children involved in the lab experiment for child development called "gay marriage" will be without their same gender as a role model.

Worse, the third fact is that the daily (institutionally-backed by federal law if the pending case goes as the Court is telling the public it will before the acual Hearing on the merits) representation of "gay marriage" to those 50% of children will be "your gender does not matter structurally AT ALL to a functioning adult society".

Not one of those things are a fact. Good job!

The survey talks about same gender positive role models, which has been pointed out to you numerous times. It does not specify who can or cannot be that role model, nor does it specify whether those who did not have a positive same gender role model may have had negative same gender role models. So clearly, your first 'fact' is nothing of the sort.

Again, as there is no reason a parent is the only person who can be a role model, the children of gay parents can certainly have same gender role models, even if both parents are the same gender as the child. An older brother, aunt/uncle, grandparent, nanny, teachers, family friends, there are many different people who could fill the role of same gender role model. So clearly, your second 'fact' is nothing of the sort.

Allowing legal marriage between homosexuals does not tell children that their gender does not matter structurally at all to a functioning adult society. Not only are gays a very small percentage of the population, not only will nearly all, if not all, of the children of gay parents be exposed to different family structures and gender roles, you are (arbitrarily, so far as I can see) deciding that the gender of a child's parents is the only factor in how they see the world. So clearly, your third 'fact' is nothing of the sort.

This is fun! Have any new 'facts' that aren't actually factual for us? You keep repeating the same laughable ones that have been so easily refuted.

 

[Silhouette]

The survey talks about same gender positive role models, which has been pointed out to you numerous times.

The gist of the survey, while it mentions all manner of other things, is the lack of the same gender as a child's role model.

The least positive situation in any healthy home, let's say, would be the one where one of the childrens' gender was missing as a role model AT ALL.

And of those two possibilities (a happy gay home & a happy single parent home), the gay home is the least desireable. Not only is the message "you're not represented here", it's "you'll never matter here". Structurally, a gay home's intrinsic message to those unhappy 50% of kids whose gender does not match the adults is "you are not necessary in a functioning adult world". A young child might process that underlying message in adaptive ways, but as that child nears adolescence, well, read the Prince's Trust study for their prognosis..

That's how a child's mind processes that. Whereas at least in a hetero one-parent home, that parent still seeks and finds value in the opposite gender when opportunities present themselves. The message there "you still matter, you're still important, I'm striving to include your gender in my functioning world".

And its no suprise then that positive or negative as a role model may be, the complete absence of one leaves a child feeling how the UK article summed it up from the OP:

These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging

Even with a negative role model, you'd have a sense of "belonging" to something, even if it is dysfunctional. How harrowing then to completely lack a sense of belonging at all, to any system. That would be the emptiest and most esteem-shrinking experience of all.

 

[Silhouette]

I think I'll trust the Prince's Trust's conclusions over whoever "Montrovant" is anyway...

 

[Montrovant]

I think I'll trust the Prince's Trust's conclusions over whoever "Montrovant" is anyway...

Which would be fine, I suppose, if you actually went with the conclusions from the Index. However, you make your own conclusions separate from those of the Prince's Trust. You also ignore every person who has pointed out your lies and misrepresentations about the survey, and you also ignore the strange fact that the Indexes after the one you consistently link did not mention same gender role models, an unusual circumstance if the gist of the survey is about same gender role models.

Of course, I've already shown you that the survey itself does not say it is about same gender role models, but rather the overall happiness of the participants, based on a number of different factors, of which same gender role models is only one, and among the recent surveys, only in the one you have linked to.

Care to (finally) address any of this, or the many other questions and points brought up regarding your conclusions from the Prince's Trust survey? Perhaps you would like to explain why you seem to consider this one survey to be the only viable data regarding the effects of same sex marriage on children, despite the fact it never mentions same sex marriage?

Who am I kidding, of course you won't! Nothing that deviates from your message of 'gay marriage is bad for the children!' can ever be discussed.

 

[Silhouette]

Refer to post #126 which will be reposted as soon as one of the spammers shows up to make it disappear.

 

[Montrovant]

Refer to post #126 which will be reposted as soon as one of the spammers shows up to make it disappear.

Refer to that post for what reason? So I can once again read how you consider gay parenting to be the worst possible environment for children? I already have gotten that from almost every other post I've seen from you.

Refer to it to see how you misrepresent the Prince's Trust Youth Index? You've done that so often, I'd be shocked to see you accurately portray any portion of the survey. I'd be more shocked to see you attempt to explain why same gender role models are not a focus of the study in any subsequent years.

 

[Silhouette]

Refer to post #126 which will be reposted as soon as one of the spammers shows up to make it disappear.

Refer to that post for what reason? So I can once again read how you consider gay parenting to be the worst possible environment for children? I already have gotten that from almost every other post I've seen from you.

Refer to it to see how you misrepresent the Prince's Trust Youth Index? You've done that so often, I'd be shocked to see you accurately portray any portion of the survey. I'd be more shocked to see you attempt to explain why same gender role models are not a focus of the study in any subsequent years.

It isn't how *I* feel that gay marraige would be the worst environment, it is the logical deduction from the Prince's Trust survey that it would be the worst. That's why I posted the quote about the kids having no sense of belonging. In a gay marriage as opposed to single parenthood of a hetero, the fundamental struture screams every day to a forming child's psyche "YOU ARE NOT NECESSARY AS PART OF THE FUNCTIONING ADULT WORLD: YOUR GENDER IS NOT LOVEABLE".. and worse still, the point that the child eventually learns where babies actually come from is the real stinger on the wasp. Not only is his gender not represented, but he learns his "mothers" needed his gender to create him, and then just used that gender and afterward completely rejected it (him).

There are so many levels of mind-fuck in a gay marriage to an opposite gendered child, (and even same gendered children being taught rejection of the other), that it's hard to wrap your head around. But we have seen a glimpse of the end-product here: Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Post #126 again, as promised:

The gist of the survey, while it mentions all manner of other things, is the lack of the same gender as a child's role model.

The least positive situation in any healthy home, let's say, would be the one where one of the childrens' gender was missing as a role model AT ALL.

And of those two possibilities (a happy gay home & a happy single parent home), the gay home is the least desireable. Not only is the message "you're not represented here", it's "you'll never matter here". Structurally, a gay home's intrinsic message to those unhappy 50% of kids whose gender does not match the adults is "you are not necessary in a functioning adult world". A young child might process that underlying message in adaptive ways, but as that child nears adolescence, well, read the Prince's Trust study for their prognosis..

That's how a child's mind processes that. Whereas at least in a hetero one-parent home, that parent still seeks and finds value in the opposite gender when opportunities present themselves. The message there "you still matter, you're still important, I'm striving to include your gender in my functioning world".

And its no suprise then that positive or negative as a role model may be, the complete absence of one leaves a child feeling how the UK article summed it up from the OP:

These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging

Even with a negative role model, you'd have a sense of "belonging" to something, even if it is dysfunctional. How harrowing then to completely lack a sense of belonging at all, to any system. That would be the emptiest and most esteem-shrinking experience of all.

 

[Skylar]

It isn't how *I* feel that gay marraige would be the worst environment, it is the logical deduction from the Prince's Trust survey that it would be the worst.

Logic? Your claims have nothing to do with logic, but emotional animus toward gays and lesbians, who you call a 'cult'. Where does the Prince Trust study even mention same sex parents? Where does the Prince Trust study indicate where a good same sex role model must come from? Or that it can only be parents?

No where. You imagine it all, based on nothing. And that's not logical. Its emotional.....rooted firmly in your personal animus toward gays.

Worse, there are more than a dozen studies that have found that the children of same sex couples are a healthy as those from opposite sex couples. Yet you ignore them all. Every single one. You claim that you don't trust the 'APA', and thus ignore any study that comes from that. Which is bullshit, in addition to being irrational.

You ignored the University of Melbourne Study. It has nothing to do with the APA. But it contradicts you. So you ignore it. Your willful ignorance is not logical.

You ignored the University of Southern California study. It has nothing to do with the APA. But it contradicts you. So you ignore it. Your willful ignorance is not logical.

You ignored the findings of the American Association of Marriage and Family therapists. They're not APA. But it contradicts you. So you ignore them too. Your willful ignorance is not logical.

You ignore any expert, any source, from any country, using any methodology, from any university, using any sample size......but only if it contradicts you. That's the cherry picking fallacy. And its explicitly illogical.

 

[Skylar]

Sigh.....you can't show us the Prince Trust study even mentioning same sex couples. Nor can you give us a rational reason for ignoring any of the more than a dozen studies that demonstrate the children of same sex couples are fine.

And lets not forget.....that the courts have already found that denying marriage to same sex couples hurts their children:

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

Windsor v. US

You can play pretend and ignore the findings of the court. But the court isn't going to ignore itself.

 

[Ravi]

It isn't the logical deduction from the Prince's Trust. At least you've finally admitted that you were talking out of your ass. Previously you were claiming it was the Prince's Trust's deduction. Now we have you admitting it was yours.

Progress.

Interesting to note that you believe an abusive same gender heterosexual parent would be a desirable role model.

 

[bendog]

Who the hell cares what some over the hill, short African American pop music guy thinks about poor kids ... not to mention gays (which he doesn't btw). I never understood why he had so many girls begging him for bedding. Makes me jealous.

 

[Silhouette]

Who the hell cares what some over the hill, short African American pop music guy thinks about poor kids ... not to mention gays (which he doesn't btw). I never understood why he had so many girls begging him for bedding. Makes me jealous.

Hilarious. And it shows you didn't read the link or are just being an idiot.

The "Prince" of Prince's Trust is I believe the Prince of Wales, which would be Charles if I'm not mistaken?

The Prince's Trust was founded in 1976 by The Prince of Wales. Having completed his duty in the Royal Navy, His Royal Highness became dedicated to improving the lives of disadvantaged young people in the UK, and began The Trust to deliver on that commitment. The history of The Prince s Trust

 

[Silhouette]

It isn't the logical deduction from the Prince's Trust. At least you've finally admitted that you were talking out of your ass. Previously you were claiming it was the Prince's Trust's deduction. Now we have you admitting it was yours...Interesting to note that you believe an abusive same gender heterosexual parent would be a desirable role model.

It IS the Prince's Trust's deduction. How stupid can you be? Logic applies to everything, including the Prince's Trust. Properly it is Logic's deduction:

If children are harmed psychologically by the daily message "your gender has no place in the adult world" then that applies to 50% of all kids caught up in gay lifestyles. Yes, it does, logically, structurally, undeniably..

So you took the lesser of two evils I spoke of and said because I'd prefer a lesser of two evils for kids that somehow equates to "I approve of single parent abusive homes". You're an asshole and a liar. Go get therapy. Oh wait, you can't, I forgot because you're now "totally normal"..

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, by all means. Let's make marriage between homos legal so we can legitimize the terrible decisions they have made all their lives that will adversely affect their children.

1. Adversely affect their children according to who? 2, And even following your reasoning, your logic doesn't work. Gays and lesbians are having kids anyway. It doesn't matter if you 'legitimize them' with marriage or not, they're still having kids. 3. So denying same sex marriage doesn't mean these kids magically have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that these children can NEVER have married parents.

4. And that helps these children.....how?

1. Adversely affecting according to the Prince's Trust survey, the largest of its kind. Consult those details in the OP.

2. Gays and lesbians can never have children. .

Gays and lesbians have hundreds and thousands of children.

As Justice Kennedy noted:

"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?"

So once again- how does preventing the parents of those children from marrying, help any children?

 

[Syriusly]

The survey talks about same gender positive role models, which has been pointed out to you numerous times.

The gist of the survey, while it mentions all manner of other things, is the lack of the same gender as a child's role model.
l.

No- actually the lack of a 'positive same gender role model' is only one component of the survey.

It is not at all the 'gist' of the survey or even the focal point of the survey. Nor does the survey say that all children who do not have a positive same gender role model will be damaged- what the survey says is that teenagers without a same positive role model are more likely to be out of work and suffer lower self esteem.

But the survey doesn't talk about same gender couples at all, or even marriage.

 

[Skylar]

you didn't read the link or are just being an idiot.

The "Prince" of Prince's Trust is I believe the Prince of Wales, which would be Charles if I'm not mistaken?

The Prince Trust study makes no mention of same sex parenting, doesn't mention same sex marriage, and measures no type of parenting. Nor does it indicate that good same sex role models are parents. Or can only be parents.

These are all you citing yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about.