Ssm And The Exploitation Of Children

[california boy]

Yes, though for the purposes of this thread, only to the extent that it comparatively addresses the topic at hand. I have done so already in one of my earlier posts regarding government assistance.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So are you proposing that any family that receives government assistance should be denied the right to marry?  Or is it just gay families.  Keep up the attack.  It is such a Christ like thing to do.

[wenglund]

Can't you just post the whole thing at once? Posting your lecture in small snippets is not making people quiver with anticipation waiting for the next installment of this amazing series. It comes across as pretentious and boring.

 

I have briefly introduced for DISCUSSION the first of four topics, and in relation to the first topic I have posed two questions for group onsideration. As yet, I haven't recieved any direct response, but instead i have been inundated with tangential and failed attempts at clever distractions...and yet you consider me to be "pretentious and boring"? Fascinating.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

With the expected flurry of intended dismissals and distractions hopefully out of the way, what say we get back on topic?

 

 

 

You see, when interacting with you, I discovered I needed something to interpret what you say.  So I prayed and was given a set of "charitable interpreters", two clear stones fastened by a bow. With these I can then take your statements and charitably interpret them to say what you should have said.

 

For instance, with the above statement, the interpreters gave me a charitable rendering of, "Alright, alright, please forgive me for my sins of engagement, what say ye we get back on topic."

 

There! Now I can take you seriously and am able to get back on topic.

[Bob Crockett]

I'd like to see some studies.  When I worked on the Prop 8 campaign and lectured at UCLA on this topic, I found the Princeton Witherspoon Report on topic but it admitted that it wasn't relying on studies to support the proposition of this thread.  

[california boy]

In spite of the apoplectic and determined hand wringing and prophesying, perhaps we can venture into this on-topic foray:

 

To bolster their recently formulated child-centric case, liberal and sympathetic groups have commissioned a number of studies confirming their bias that children of gay couples fare as well if not better than children of heterosexuals, and that they would suffer psychologically if gay marriage were not legalized. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE).

 

Are these studies beyond doubt, and the final word on the matter?

 

We will see.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Here is a direct response.  If you are trying to once again make the case that gay families should not be allowed to marry then you have to find studies that show couples that are not married do better than couples that are married.  Of course by doing so, you are actually making the case that no one should get married.  

[wenglund]

So are you proposing that any family that receives government assistance should be denied the right to marry? 

 

No. Nothing I have said could reasonably be interpreted as suggesting anything of the sort. in fact, as clearly indicated in my openning post, this thread isn't intended to argue one way or the other whether SSM should be legalized or not.

 

All the quoted statistic is intended to show is the falsity of the claim that children of gay parents have fallen through the societal cracks, when in truth they are more cared for by the government, even where SSM isn't legal, than children of heterosexual couples.

 

In other words, it debunks one of several child-exploiting emotional ploys that was used to persuade adults to support legalizing gay marriage. It let's people know how and that they were duped on the matter.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 19, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Here is a direct response.  If you are trying to once again make the case that gay families should not be allowed to marry then you have to find studies that show couples that are not married do better than couples that are married.  Of course by doing so, you are actually making the case that no one should get married.  

 

Again, as indicated in the OP, this thread is explicitly NOT about making a case for or against gay marriage. What will it take for you to finally get this?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I'd like to see some studies.  When I worked on the Prop 8 campaign and lectured at UCLA on this topic, I found the Princeton Witherspoon Report on topic but it admitted that it wasn't relying on studies to support the proposition of this thread.  

 

Your request gives me the chance to repost an earlier comment that has yet to be completely addressed, if at all:

 

To bolster their recently formulated child-centric case, liberal and sympathetic groups have commissioned a number of studies confirming their bias that children of gay couples fare as well if not better than children of heterosexuals, and that they would suffer psychologically if gay marriage were not legalized. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE).

 

Are these studies beyond doubt, and the final word on the matter?

 

We will see.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Nehor]

I have briefly introduced for DISCUSSION the first of four topics, and in relation to the first topic I have posed two questions for group onsideration. As yet, I haven't recieved any direct response, but instead i have been inundated with tangential and failed attempts at clever distractions...and yet you consider me to be "pretentious and boring"? Fascinating.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Don't be disingenuous. You have been lecturing. Your idea of discussion is people agreeing with you and dismissing everyone else. You lecture. It is what you do. This is not my first Wade thread. You also draw it out while pretending you are unsure:

 

 

We will see.

 

See what I mean by disingenuous? We all know what your eventual conclusion is going to be. Why do you pretend we are going to find out after the "evidence" is presented? You already know where you are going. Stop pretending otherwise. This is why the whole thing is pretentious and boring.

 

Fascinating.

 

How DARE you? HOW DARE YOU SIR?

 

Comparing yourself to Mr. Spock is an insult to his memory and I demand satisfaction. Do you want to pick weapons or location?

[Damien the Leper]

Point well taken. The explotation of children hasn't just been on one side, though in some respects, and as will be demonstrated, it is more nefariously pronounced on one side.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

This "lesser of two evils" nonsense has no place in genuine dialogue and is inherrently fallacious.

[Damien the Leper]

Your desparate attempt at well-poisoning is also duely noted.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Not poisoning any well. I'm just stating the obvious. The propagandists and anti-family/anti-gay fascists who wish to denegrate relationships and livelihoods are the problem and never the solution. They are parasites.

[Damien the Leper]

This is false. I stated the conclusions by way of introduction, with the explicit intent of adequately substantiating my conclusions in due course.

 

Stay tuned.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

No. Your conclusions are based on reductive bias and not sound and reasonable deductive logic based on sustained and well researched evidence. The conclusions are the talking points and fear tactics. The journey to those conclusions are sand and not solid rock.

[wenglund]

Don't be disingenuous. You have been lecturing. Your idea of discussion is people agreeing with you and dismissing everyone else. You lecture. It is what you do. This is not my first Wade thread. You also draw it out while pretending you are unsure:

 

 

 

See what I mean by disingenuous? We all know what your eventual conclusion is going to be. Why do you pretend we are going to find out after the "evidence" is presented? You already know where you are going. Stop pretending otherwise. This is why the whole thing is pretentious and boring.

 

 

How DARE you? HOW DARE YOU SIR?

 

Comparing yourself to Mr. Spock is an insult to his memory and I demand satisfaction. Do you want to pick weapons or location?

 

Now there is a finger-waving lecture if ever i have seen one. LOL

 

http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/late-night-with-conan-obrien/images/9887638/title/conan-finger-wave-fanart

 

But, I really shouldn't dilute the DISCUSSION with this kind of pretentious and boring banter, and so I will resist the temptation going forward.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Nehor]

But, I really shouldn't dilute the DISCUSSION with this kind of pretentious and boring banter, and so I will resist the temptation going forward.

 

Helpful Hint:

 

If you want to do a witty rebuttal copying the other person's verbiage is not the way to do it. It smacks of laziness.

[wenglund]

This "lesser of two evils" nonsense has no place in genuine dialogue and is inherrently fallacious.

 

In your 4 or so posts in just 2 pages, you have yet to directly address any of my on-topic questions and substantiated points, and have resorted instead to emiting a fog of snide dismissals, so I have serious doubts that you are interested in or capable of "genuine dialogue" on the topic. So, going forward, unless or until you do engage in "genuine dialogue,' I will simply ignore your non-contributions.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 19, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Are these studies beyond doubt, and the final word on the matter?

 

Well, no doubt these studies were widely trumpeted by the liberal media (ibid), and have found their way into legal briefs and court rulings, and were marshaled to elicit the endorsement of seemingly respected organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics (see HERE) and the less surprising American Psychiatric Association (see HERE), as well as not a few federal judges (see HERE)

 

Very impressive. But, again, are these studies beyond doubt, and the final word on the matter?

 

What do you think?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 19, 2014 by wenglund

[Damien the Leper]

In your 4 or so posts in just 2 pages, you have yet to directly address any of my on-topic questions and substantiated points, and have resorted instead to emiting a fog of snide dismissals, so I have serious doubts that you are interested in or capable of "genuine dialogue" on the topic. So, going forward, unless or until you do engage in "genuine dialogue,' I will simply ignore your non-contributions.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Wade, all you do is try to guide others to come to the same conclusions as you do via your reasoning. Rather than allow others to look at evidence and draw their own conclusions you seem adamant to portray the "facts" in such a way that your perspective "wins". Nothing thus far in your links is anything new and has already been addressed numerous times. This is just your crusade.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No. Nothing I have said could reasonably be interpreted as suggesting anything of the sort. in fact, as clearly indicated in my openning post, this thread isn't intended to argue one way or the other whether SSM should be legalized or not.

 

All the quoted statistic is intended to show is the falsity of the claim that children of gay parents have fallen through the societal cracks, when in truth they are more cared for by the government, even where SSM isn't legal, than children of heterosexual couples.

 

In other words, it debunks one of several child-exploiting emotional ploys that was used to persuade adults to support legalizing gay marriage. It let's people know how and that they were duped on the matter.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

IOW the whole idea to support the gay agenda is for the children and how they are affected negatively because of the bigoted laws we have when the reality is that people who are gay and have kids, those kids seem to fair better now than even people who are strait that have kids regardless of the legality of marriage for gays.

 

Wade you are such a bigot for bringing this to our attention. Shame on you. I cannot even dialogue with you because of your views. Ugh!!!

You are boring too.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wade, all you do is try to guide others to come to the same conclusions as you do via your reasoning. Rather than allow others to look at evidence and draw their own conclusions you seem adamant to portray the "facts" in such a way that your perspective "wins". Nothing thus far in your links is anything new and has already been addressed numerous times. This is just your crusade.

You know what is so freaking funny about your post, is those that are for the gay agenda want to freaking ram it down everyone's throats all in the name of "equal protection".  I can't even look at the evidence and draw my own conclusion. I think you have a crusade to dismiss anything Wade says. So carry on and take that.

[wenglund]

I have just been accused of disallowing people the ability to examine facts for themselves and draw their own conclusions. So, in controvention to this accusation, let me present once again the following facts, and invite the readers to express what relevant conclusion(s) they draw therefrom:

 

According to the gay advocacy website, Williams Institute, in 2010 approximately 3.4% of lesbians raising children, and 2.7% of gay men with kids, received public assistance, as compared with only 1.3% of heterosexual parents. (See HERE)

 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bob Crockett]

Your request gives me the chance to repost an earlier comment that has yet to be completely addressed, if at all:

 

To bolster their recently formulated child-centric case, liberal and sympathetic groups have commissioned a number of studies confirming their bias that children of gay couples fare as well if not better than children of heterosexuals, and that they would suffer psychologically if gay marriage were not legalized. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE).

 

Are these studies beyond doubt, and the final word on the matter?

 

We will see.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hey, I'm sympathetic, but how about some studies to support your position rather than studies that don't. I don't consider anecdotal statements about a 9 year old kid forced to watch his gay parents have sex as supporting anything at all. I've handled cases where hetero parents do lots lots worse.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[wenglund]

Again, in controvention to the accusation that I don't allow people to look at the facts and draw their own conclusion, let my once again ask: are these previously cited studies beyond doubt, and the final word on the matter?

 

What do you think?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

You know what is so freaking funny about your post, is those that are for the gay agenda want to freaking ram it down everyone's throats all in the name of "equal protection".  I can't even look at the evidence and draw my own conclusion. I think you have a crusade to dismiss anything Wade says. So carry on and take that.

 

And heterosexual relationships and families aren't shoved down society's throat in the name of "traditional marriage" or "traditional families"? Nice single standard, Mola.

[wenglund]

Hey, I'm sympathetic, but how about some studies to support your position rather than studies that don't. I don't consider anecdotal statements about a 9 year old kid forced to watch his gay parents have sex as supporting anything at all. I've handled cases where hetero parents do lots lots worse.

 

I appreciate what you are asking and saying.

 

However, I have been accused of setting up the facts so as to force my position. So, in controvention to this accusation, I wanted to first present facts from the opposing view, and then give my opponents the chance to offer their impressions, before presenting my own facts and conclusions and asking for their impressions.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 19, 2014 by wenglund

[Buckeye]

Again, in controvention to the accusation that I don't allow people to look at the facts and draw their own conclusion, let my once again ask: are these previously cited studies beyond doubt, and the final word on the matter?

 

What do you think?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Not sure why you need to keep asking the obvious.  Without looking at each of the studies in detail, I imagine that they are all based on some scientific objective inquiries, set out their conclusions, and leave the door open to additional studies.  Science is never "beyond doubt."  There is no final word.  But that acknowledgement does not mean there isn't a lot of evidence to support the position and that it would take some serious counter-evidence to begin to cause doubts.