• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

I agree and think America has forgotten what sex is for, plus they've disgraced marriage. Divorce rates and the number of kids born out of wedlock back my opinion. With that said, I'm not going to sit back and say "it's already damaged, so no harm in doing more damage."

Well, since rearing children is probably the most important aspect of marriage, and gay couples accomplish this task very well, equal to straight couples, you seem quite confused on the concept of "damage".
 
I agree and think America has forgotten what sex is for, plus they've disgraced marriage. Divorce rates and the number of kids born out of wedlock back my opinion. With that said, I'm not going to sit back and say "it's already damaged, so no harm in doing more damage."

You have not shown any evidence of damage from allowing same sex marriage.
 
I agree and think America has forgotten what sex is for, plus they've disgraced marriage. Divorce rates and the number of kids born out of wedlock back my opinion. With that said, I'm not going to sit back and say "it's already damaged, so no harm in doing more damage."

The only people capable of 'damaging' marriage are two people that are married. And if they damage their marriage, it is only their marriage that is damaged, it doesn't effect anyone else. Anyone getting divorced, a 56 second Brittany marriage, or a gay couple being married, does NOTHING to the marriage of any other people. Period.
 
Quit trying to dodge the fact that your daughter and her partner can not create a child together.
So freaking what if they can't?Doesn't bother me or her mother.
What does that have ANYTHING to do with YOU?
Sorry if I don't share your obsession with who is procreating with who. That's kind of creepy on your part..

My daughter and her lover may not be able to create a child together, but they sure can raise a child together.
And I think that's more important.
And my grandchildren will receive nothing but love and support from the entire family.

And sorry, but I have to take your confidence with a grain of salt, given that you're talking about your daughter.

You can take it with a cup of milk and a plate of cookies as an enema,for all I care.I know my daughter way better than you do.
I know she's going to be a great parent.

The infertile couples are the ones who should adopt, because the child isn't going to notice a difference.
And you know this how?
How many kids have you adopted?
Heterosexual couples who don't plan on kids are still most likely to have sex and have a safety net for that unplanned child many have. Your daughter is not going to have an accidental child with her lesbian lover.
Once more,so freaking what.She can have a child from a turkey baster for all me and her mom care.You're the one with the procreation obsession,not us.
Me and my wife are just happy having grandchildren.

Your adopted grandchild is going to continually wonder why they have two moms and no dad, likely teased for it too.

And you know this how?
Are you some kind of psychic?
Are you looking at a crystal ball?
Can you contact the spirits and tell me which stocks to pick next month?

Again,so freaking what?
How my daughter gives us the grand child doesn't matter to me and my wife (and I'm wondering why does it matter to you? You didn't raise my daughter,and you don't have to take care of my grandchild.)
Wondering why my grandchild has two mommies is something my daughter and the rest of the family are going to have to deal with.
But we will deal with it with love,honesty and understanding.

Oh no's.My grand child may get teased.
Teased by people just like you.Oh well.
If my daughter could survive growing up being teased because she was interracial,(and gay),I think grandchild can survive being teased because she has two mommies.

If it isn't having two mommys,it'll be because he or she is fat,or skinny,or smart,or wears glasses,or is dark,or has red hair,or is short,or is tall.......people will always find a reason to pick on and tease those that are different.

But hey,I was teased growing up because I was the only dark skin child in a working class Irish/Italian neighborhood.
I survived it,and it made stronger.
I learned how to defend myself.
And then the teasing stopped.
My grandchild is going to learn how to defend his or herself,just like granddad did,just like grandma did,and just like all my daughters did.
So your while your concern for my grandchild is touching,I think the Verthaine family can handle it.

The relationship my wife and I have puts others to shame.
Good for you.So does my wife and I.
But me and my wife aren't the ones worried about how SSM will degrade and devalue OUR marriage.


By the way,do you even have a horse in this race?
Because me and my wife does.
Our gay daughter.
Answer this question. If everyone gets to add what they want to the meaning of marriage, what is it going to mean in the end?
Here's my answer.
I don't give a crap about what other people do unless it involve ordering food from my resturants,hiring my caterers,or renting my banguet halls
I don't stick my nose in other peoples business (unlike some people on this forum....).
Me and my wife define what our marriage is for ourselves.
Not you or anyone else.
And I want the same right for all my daughters.
Whether you like it or not.
 
Last edited:
Actually that is exactly what it means....
If we are going to find out what nature intends, you need to introduce me to that person named Nature. People intend things, nature simply is.
Fair enough. If your standard for normalcy is what occurs in nature, you want to compare homosexuality to other human mental or physical disabilities. Although I'm surprised I guess we can go with that.
 
Fair enough. If your standard for normalcy is what occurs in nature, you want to compare homosexuality to other human mental or physical disabilities. Although I'm surprised I guess we can go with that.

Natural and normal are different words with different meanings. You cannot use the two interchangeably like you are doing.
 
Natural and normal are different words with different meanings. You cannot use the two interchangeably like you are doing.
So then while not being normal in any way, as long as something appears in nature you're suggesting it must be embraced by our society.
 
So then while not being normal in any way, as long as something appears in nature you're suggesting it must be embraced by our society.

Never stated that. You can't just make **** up and claim I said it. Neither "normal" nor "natural" has any bearing on SSM, good or bad.

So do you have an actual position or are you just trying to build straw men?
 
Never stated that. You can't just make **** up and claim I said it. Neither "normal" nor "natural" has any bearing on SSM, good or bad.

So do you have an actual position or are you just trying to build straw men?
My recollection is that you brought up "nature" re homosexuality re SSM. It has no bearing after all?
 
My recollection is that you brought up "nature" re homosexuality re SSM. It has no bearing after all?

Since it is in the thread, you should be able to look it up. Hint: I was responding to some one else's use of the word.

So do you have a position or are you just going to keep making things up in regards to what I have said?
 
...

So do you have a position or are you just going to keep making things up in regards to what I have said?

Oooooooh.
Sure.
Rather than change the definition of traditional marriage, just remind everyone that anyone can join in a contract at any time with anyone about any thing.
 
Oooooooh.
Sure.
Rather than change the definition of traditional marriage, just remind everyone that anyone can join in a contract at any time with anyone about any thing.

Looks like you're just going to make up irrelevant crap that no one is claiming. Makes you look dishonest.
 
Oooooooh.
Sure.
Rather than change the definition of traditional marriage, just remind everyone that anyone can join in a contract at any time with anyone about any thing.

Looks like you're just going to make up irrelevant crap that no one is claiming. Makes you look dishonest.

Captain my captain ... I made an assumption ... does traditional marriage even HAVE a definition in your world?
 
Oooooooh.
Sure.
Rather than change the definition of traditional marriage, just remind everyone that anyone can join in a contract at any time with anyone about any thing.

Typical right wing red herring.

Honestly, the marrying your horse idea just doesn't hunt.
 
sociologists are not in agreement about whether or not same sex parents is harmful to the upbringing of a child.

This is a great example of why pseudoscience has no place in law-government.
 
Captain my captain ... I made an assumption ... does traditional marriage even HAVE a definition in your world?

Traditional marriage up until 1975 in most states meant that the husband controlled all the property. Is that what you mean or something less obviously misogynistic? You might want to research the history of marriage before bandying about word like "traditional."
 
Originally Posted by CanadaJohn
sociologists are not in agreement about whether or not same sex parents is harmful to the upbringing of a child.

Which sociologists?
 
Captain my captain ... I made an assumption ... does traditional marriage even HAVE a definition in your world?

Begging the question logical fallacy. So, now along with irrelevant crap, you are going to post illogically.
 
Traditional marriage up until 1975 in most states meant that the husband controlled all the property. Is that what you mean or something less obviously misogynistic? You might want to research the history of marriage before bandying about word like "traditional."

"bandying"?
Wow ... you're really reaching if you're trying to say man-woman pairing was never a component in "traditional" marriage here.
Is that what you're implying through your willful disregard of reality?
 
Originally Posted by bubbabgone

Captain my captain ... I made an assumption ... does traditional marriage even HAVE a definition in your world?

Begging the question logical fallacy. So, now along with irrelevant crap, you are going to post illogically.

Uh...okay.
Anyway ... let's leave aside your incomprehensible ramblings intended as a diversion and go back to the question ... has the gender (opposite, that is) of marriage participants been a component of traditional marriage or not?
It's a yes or no question.
 
Uh...okay.
Anyway ... let's leave aside your incomprehensible ramblings intended as a diversion and go back to the question ... has the gender (opposite, that is) of marriage participants been a component of traditional marriage or not?
It's a yes or no question.
Lizards, mice and bugs squeeze through some mighty small cracks.
 
Uh...okay.
Anyway ... let's leave aside your incomprehensible ramblings intended as a diversion and go back to the question ... has the gender (opposite, that is) of marriage participants been a component of traditional marriage or not?
It's a yes or no question.

I would say that traditional marriage has, in the past, been defined as between opposite genders.

Now notice. You ask an honest question, you get an honest answer. I believe this is the first honest question you have asked me in this thread. Your LAST one was complete BS.

So, now that you have an answer, tell me what different the answer makes to the focus of this thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom