Page 101 of 123 FirstFirst ... 519199100101102103111 ... LastLast
Results 1,001 to 1,010 of 1229

Thread: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

  1. #1001
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,277

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    I already debunked and destroyed this "study" in another thread.
    Egads ... you debunked & destroyed 2 independent studies? ... you must really be good.

  2. #1002
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,277

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    If you go and find a study that shows that the earth is flat... and it is debunked as false, your study is WRONG, and your comment "would you accept it" is idiotic. When a study is presented, it needs to be analyzed.
    I have posted SCORES of studies on this issue at DP. I have read them all. The ones that are methodologically unsound are dismissed.
    Your study is invalid and dismissed. Your comment "would you accept it" is therefore also dismissed.
    Scores? Wow.
    Name 'em.
    The ones you accepted ... & the ones you dismissed ... after applying that superhuman scrutiny you see yourself practicing ... especially the ones you rejected even though they supported what you wanted them to support.
    This oughta be good.
    I betcha I know what's coming next.

  3. #1003
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:21 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,801

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Egads ... you debunked & destroyed 2 independent studies? ... you must really be good.

    Lots of people have debunked the Regnerus and Schumm "studies"
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  4. #1004
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-30-17 @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Did you stomp your feet as you were typing that too?

    .
    I think it was more of a smart little click of the heels.
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  5. #1005
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by Verthaine View Post
    Your words,not mine.
    Your words. You literally had 2 maybe 3 exceptions.

    Don't they already have that ability?
    There are plenty of straight people out there who want the definition to change.
    I believe the word is called "a majority".
    Prop 8 passed and people like you are trying to overturn the vote of the people. Do you even keep up with the news? Embarrassing.

    Discrimination based on sexuality is still discrimination.
    Not a special sexual interest group trying to change the definition from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?.
    Gays not being allowed to change the definition over any other sexual interest group is not discrimination

    Yes gays are a sexual interest group trying to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?

    Oh I get it.I see what you are trying to do.
    You're trying to lump gays with pedophiles and people who want to marry their cow.
    By using the term "sexual interest group" you are trying to portray gay people as something sinister.
    Your words. Not mine. Who would you exclude if marriage is a "Civil Right". Do you fundamentally understand what a Civil Right even is?

    You do realize my daughter is gay,right?
    There is nothing "sinister" about her.
    And she's way to busy with her studies at med school to even be a part of any "sexual interest group".
    I don't care if your daughter is gay

    Hate the sin. Not the sinner.

    You do realize I'm black,right?
    And that my parents were active members of the civil rights movement.
    So why don't you tell me ALL about the struggle WE blacks went through.
    Especially my parent.Because I had a ringside seat.
    My parents went through hell so that I can have the rights that I enjoy as an American citizen.
    Things that I witnessed with my own two eyes growing up.
    My wife and I can do no less for our daughter.
    Comparing the struggle that blacks went through to gay marriage is insensitive and racist against blacks

    This is a message board. You can claim anything you want on the internet. Doesn't make it true and you're once again using emotional arguments. Not logical ones.

    Never said it was.Are you saying being attracted to the same sex is a bad thing?

    If I recall correctly, for a very long time,in many states,a black man being attracted to a white woman was a reason for a lynching.
    Comparing blacks to gays is insensitive and racist against blacks. Blacks can't not have black skin. Gays can choose whether to have sex or not. Shame on you for minimizing the real struggle blacks went through in this country, which was based upon nothing more than their appearance, to a person's sexual preference.

    I know first hand about the struggle we blacks had to go through, because I witnessed it growing up with my parents.
    Which makes your comparisons even more egregious. You should know the difference.

    Have you ever seen your father beaten by cops during a peaceful civil rights demonstration?
    I have.
    Ever had the words "niggers get out" painted on your front door?
    I had when I was growing up.
    Ever got beaten up by a bunch of jocks in highschool just because you asked a girl of their race out?
    I have.

    You do realize that I am married to a white woman also?
    So don't even try to drop the innuendo that I'm racist.
    It is racist to compare the real struggle that blacks went through in this country to gays demanding the special right to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?

    For some reason,I don't think you are a "very liberal" at all.
    What gave you that impression?

    Again,that's you opinion.
    Civil right's isn't a "black thing" in civil rights.
    And maybe it's time we include "marriage"
    Marriage is not a Civil Right

    It's not prohibited by the Constitution,either.And the Constitution can be changed you know
    The states should decide. That isn't good enough for people like you.

    But quite a number of them had no problem owning slaves,now did they?
    Many of them had a problem owning slaves and we fought a bloody civil war over it. Again, comparing that history with gays having the special right to change the definition of marriage is racist and insensitive. It's demeans what blacks went through. Shame on you.

    We live in the 21st century.They didn't.
    Things have changed a bit since their time.
    Go build a time machine,grab a few of them,and lets here what THEY have to say about the subject.
    So now The Founders go under the bus because they don't agree with your agenda. The Founders drafted the greatest document in the History of Mankind and setup a system with certain rules that people like you aren't willing to follow if it doesn't suit your political agenda. It was by design that each individual state should vote on social issues like this. Not centrally planned top down mandated social experiments.

    The Founding Fathers were human beings,not Gods we have to worship.
    They weren't perfect.
    Neither are gay people. What gives gays the special right to change the definition of marriage over any other sexual interest group?

    I couldn't help notice you used the term "whatever" rather than ""whomever" they want.
    Dehumanizing the other (in this case,you are dehumanizing gays) is the mark of a would be dictator.
    You're engaging in emotional reasoning again. If marriage is a Civil Right, who are you to judge and deny a person whatever they want to marry? People can have all kinds of emotional reasoning and even economical ones if the perception of marriage is changed. Single people can form group marriages to take advantage of the tax credits, ect. There's a pandoras box of potential combinations once the definition of marriage is changed from man + woman to man +? or woman + ?. I understand that people like you scream and kick the floor when this is brought up, but that is an emotional reaction. Not a logical one, hence not my problem.

    Are you even married?
    There's way more emotions involved in marriage than there is logic.
    Gay Marriage is not a Civil Right. Claiming that it is is an emotional argument. Not a logical one.

  6. #1006
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,277

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Lots of people have debunked the Regnerus and Schumm "studies"
    Who & on what grounds ... other than "I don't like the findings we've got to say something".

    Wait ... are you referring to Think Progress as one of "lots of people"?
    Tell ya what ... just list who they are ... ya don't even have to provide the links.

    There is absolutely no chance those 2 studies suffer from any flaws that other studies of SSM suffer from. None.

  7. #1007
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    09-18-16 @ 03:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,029

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Yes you can.
    Nope public policy doesn't allow contractual prenups dealing with child support, and rarely with spousal support (except for certain specific situations).

    But keep pretending. It's where you're at.

  8. #1008
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,277

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    ...
    Gay Marriage is not a Civil Right. Claiming that it is is an emotional argument. Not a logical one.
    Kudos to you Bronson.
    You are incredibly patient.
    Have you noticed that the most insistent people you run across are the ones who have taken a position on something that didn't even occur to them until it became leftist de rigueur?
    Now you can't shake 'em from it.
    Happens time and again.

  9. #1009
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,277

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    Nope public policy doesn't allow contractual prenups dealing with child support, and rarely with spousal support (except for certain specific situations).

    But keep pretending. It's where you're at.
    Pre-nup? Who said pre-nup? We were talking no-nup. Sounds like you're trying to wiggle out.

  10. #1010
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Gay Marriage is not a Civil Right. Claiming that it is is an emotional argument. Not a logical one.
    I beg to differ

    Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

    Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.

    Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
    Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
    Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
    Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
    Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
    Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
    Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
    Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
    Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
    Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
    Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
    Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
    M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
    Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

    14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •