Page 102 of 123 FirstFirst ... 25292100101102103104112 ... LastLast
Results 1,011 to 1,020 of 1229

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

  1. #1011
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:55 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,883

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

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    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.”
    All of those cases can be used to argue for close relation marriage, plural marriages, and multiple marriages since it involves telling the State to stay out of the marriage contract.

  2. #1012
    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 winston53660 View Post
    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
    Nothing listed here even hints at giving one sexual interest group over another the right to CHANGE the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?

    In every case you cite, they didn't need to explain to rational thinking individuals that marriage meant anything other than man + woman. It wasn't a concept that needed to be explained. Equal treatment to an institution is one thing, demanding access to that institution and demanding the institution changes the way it does things to accommodate your demands is an entirely different matter. If I wanted to join an all female fitness club as a man do I have a right to do that?

  3. #1013
    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
    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.
    for some reason, people working in the field disagree with your assertion

    Regnerus admits he didn't follow standard procedures in labeling the parents
    CL: The journal that published your study is going to run a response from you in the near future to all your critics. If you had it all to do over again, what would you do differently?

    MR: I’d be more careful about the language I used to describe people whose parents had same-sex relationships. I said “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers,” when in fact, I don’t know about their sexual orientation; I do know about their same-sex relationship behavior. But as far as the findings themselves, I stand behind them. My only hope for the study going in was to let the data say what it was going to say. I knew I’d make some friends and some enemies with the study — I just didn’t know who they were going to be.
    Controversial Gay-Parenting Study Is Severely Flawed, Journal’s Audit Finds

    Among the problems Sherkat identified is the paper’s definition of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers”—an aspect that has been the focus of much of the public criticism. A woman could be identified as a “lesbian mother” in the study if she had had a relationship with another woman at any point after having a child, regardless of the brevity of that relationship and whether or not the two women raised the child as a couple.
    <snip>
    If a reviewer were to skip ahead to the statistics in the table, it would be understandable, he said, to assume that the children described there were, in fact, raised by a gay or lesbian couple for a significant portion of their childhoods.

    In reality, only two respondents lived with a lesbian couple for their entire childhoods, and most did not live with lesbian or gay parents for long periods, if at all.
    for more on the Regnerus paper, go here. You will see a paper by Schumm which attempts to provide cover for Regnerus' failures

    Link to one study concerning the Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents
    More than two decades of research has failed
    to reveal important differences in the adjustment or de-
    velopment of children or adolescents reared by same-sex
    couples compared to those reared by other-sex couples.
    Results of the research suggest that qualities of family re-
    lationships are more tightly linked with child outcomes
    than is parental sexual orientation
    link to an American Sociological Assn article (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter? It's complex and not easy to pull a quote from. I thought it was a relatively balanced synopsis of the studies that were performed in the 1990s - article was published in 2001. The authors note that many of the "pro-gay" studies are carried out by researchers with positive views on gays and lesbians but they found even more bias in those "anti-gay parent" researchers. Generally, studies show little in the way of negative effects on the children with same-sex parents, the largest problem being homophobic bullying inflicted by fellow students.

    The recent Prop 8 presentation before the SCOTUS had among many amicus briefs, one from the American Sociological Assn. that stated research has found Parents’ Sexual Orientation Has No Bearing on Children’s Well-Being
    “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. #1014
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,274

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    for some reason, people working in the field disagree with your assertion

    Regnerus admits he didn't follow standard procedures in labeling the parents



    for more on the Regnerus paper, go here. You will see a paper by Schumm which attempts to provide cover for Regnerus' failures

    Link to one study concerning the Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents

    link to an American Sociological Assn article
    (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter? It's complex and not easy to pull a quote from. I thought it was a relatively balanced synopsis of the studies that were performed in the 1990s - article was published in 2001. The authors note that many of the "pro-gay" studies are carried out by researchers with positive views on gays and lesbians but they found even more bias in those "anti-gay parent" researchers. Generally, studies show little in the way of negative effects on the children with same-sex parents, the largest problem being homophobic bullying inflicted by fellow students.

    The recent Prop 8 presentation before the SCOTUS had among many amicus briefs, one from the
    American Sociological Assn. that stated research has found [URL="http://www.asanet.org/press/asa_files_amicus_brief_in_same-sex_marriage_cases.cfm"]Parents’ Sexual Orientation Has No Bearing on Children’s Well-Being[/
    URL]
    That's quite incredible. It's like, beyond what you quoted, you didn't even read what you posted a link to. He didn't reject his findings and he specified up front how he got his participants and who they were.

    But at least you did point out the biases of the pro-gay studies ... some of which actually broadcast requests for participants in leftist publications.

    As for the findings put forward in ASA's amicus brief, I'd expect nothing less from that organization. How much do you know about them?

    As for this study "Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents" ... the author of the study haas a long history of promoting homosexual causes, was in a lesbian relationship and is raising children, the sample in the study was very small, she has a history of making up numbers, and much more ... in short that thing was the poster child of flawed research.

    Serious question ... did you know that before posting it as a serious work?

  5. #1015
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,301
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    All of those cases can be used to argue for close relation marriage, plural marriages, and multiple marriages since it involves telling the State to stay out of the marriage contract.
    Not exactly, no. Since marriage is a civil right(this is simple reality based on Supreme Court rulings...you can disagree with whether it should be, but legally it is) protected by the 14th amendment, that means that denying marriage to some one is subject to Judicial Review at some level. In that way, and only in that way, is your statement kinda true. Past that, to the actual legal arguments used, they are quite different.

    As of right now, we do not know what level of review(there are three levels) would apply to SSM, and legal scholars are split. Most likely SSM and close relation marriage and plural/multiple marriages would all be subject to Rational basis review, with SSM possible being Intermediate or Strict Scrutiny, the others unlikely to raise to that level. Even assuming SSM falls under only Rational Basis review, that still means the state has to show that a ban on SSM(or the other types of marriage you mention) has to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. SSM bans are unlikely to pass such scrutiny, as there is zero evidence of any harm caused by SSM, and evidence of benefit with SSM. This is not the case with plural/multiple marriages, which best evidence suggests is not a good environment for raising children, and I really do not know that arguments involving close relations marriage as I have never looked into it.

    In other words, the arguments as to the governments interest in banning different types of marriage is different, so saying that SSM leads to other types of marriage, or that the arguments are the same is simply false.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  6. #1016
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    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.
    I am.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  7. #1017
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    04-24-13 @ 04:17 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2

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

    I too believe that same sex parenting will not affect the child, but maybe not if they will take good care of them.

  8. #1018
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,774

    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.
    Or they must be really bad, which, of course, they were.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  9. #1019
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,274

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Or they must be really bad, which, of course, they were.
    Then will you explain what was wrong with those 2 studies that set them apart from studies you believe to be relaible?
    Before you attempt a reply, see post #1014 because you'll need to make sure whatever study you cite doesn't suffer from those problems. I haven't seen one that doesn't ... but then again, you have to actually check.

  10. #1020
    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
    Then will you explain what was wrong with those 2 studies that set them apart from studies you believe to be relaible?
    Before you attempt a reply, see post #1014 because you'll need to make sure whatever study you cite doesn't suffer from those problems. I haven't seen one that doesn't ... but then again, you have to actually check.
    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    That's quite incredible. It's like, beyond what you quoted, you didn't even read what you posted a link to. He didn't reject his findings and he specified up front how he got his participants and who they were.

    But at least you did point out the biases of the pro-gay studies ... some of which actually broadcast requests for participants in leftist publications.

    As for the findings put forward in ASA's amicus brief, I'd expect nothing less from that organization. How much do you know about them?

    As for this study "Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents" ... the author of the study haas a long history of promoting homosexual causes, was in a lesbian relationship and is raising children, the sample in the study was very small, she has a history of making up numbers, and much more ... in short that thing was the poster child of flawed research.

    Serious question ... did you know that before posting it as a serious work?

    Well duh . . . no one expected Regnerus to reject his own work, no matter how bad it was. Just as obvious that you haven't read any of the criticisms laid against Regnerus. The strongest one is the way he labeled the parents in his 'study' - basically labeling a person as gay or lesbian if they had ever had sex with a same gender partner. He did not include very many families with long term stable relationships - the very type of opposite sex couples the was using as comparison. The study was paid for by a group that is openly anti-gay, the Witherspoon Institute. After months of fighting against FOIA requests for documentation, the Univ of Texas has released pages of documents on the study

    The Schumm 'study' was not even an actual study, rather it was Mr Schumm taking words from twelve books written about gay parenting and in many cases blatantly misrepresenting what was to be found in the books.

    ONE study, the one you criticise because the author is a lesbian, is just that - ONE paper out of many that go back to the 1970s. When looking at lots of academic papers and finding some that show bias, one should not automatically assume that ALL of the studies were poorly done. However, as so many on the right are only capable of binary thinking, that does seem to be a standard response. "One bad - ALL bad!"

    So because Regnerus and Schumm are quite outspoken in their 'hatred' of the gays, one should not automatically assume their work is bad - but when the vast majority of experts in the field make negative statements - well . . . then maybe the non-experts should accept the knowledge
    “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

Posting Permissions

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