Page 4 of 123 FirstFirst ... 234561454104 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 1229

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

  1. #31
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

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

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    Since the process of adoption is judicial and involves substantial inquiry into what is in the child's best interest, his question was pure conservative culture war dreck.
    Since you pontificate that 'the process of adoption is judicial' then you agreed with Scalia when he said this (from the OP):

    "Some states do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.”
    Presuming of course that said state legislation/regulation has been challenged/reviewed/supported by state judicial review...?
    "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure" - 2006 Senator Obama...leadership failure indeed!

  2. #32
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I highly doubt this will be the case. SCOTUS seems hesitant to rule on the situation at all. Given the clear trend of public opinion on the issue, I think they're much more likely to overturn prop 8 than to uphold it.

    In this particular round, DOMA is actually not being challenged on FFC grounds. The current case before the court only overturns section 3, regarding benefits for federal employees in same-sex unions, under equal protection grounds I think.
    Well a lot seem to think they may sidestep the gay marriage issue altogether which would just be rich for as worked up as people are on the left thinking they have a slam dunk (link below) The SCOTUS is not limited by the arguments made by the parties in the case. I have trouble believing there isn't an amicus brief in their stack somewhere on FFC.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/us...anted=all&_r=0

  3. #33
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    Actually, Scalia is pretty much right on.

    The fact is adoption agencies most certainly don't historically allow adoption by SS couples for the very reason he presented, and it's a huge reason: http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-an...post1061593200
    ... One of the most important teaching mechanisms that kids and teens utilize in learning about appropriate behavior in romantic relationship is by observing example in their nuclear family, an essentially unconscious process.

    In a marriage (meaning, of course, between OS couples), the kids see the role of the man and the role of the woman in a romantic relationship. Teens grow up knowing the exemplified manner in which men treat women in romance and love and women treat men in romance and love.

    This is huge.

    Now, SS and OS couples each have their own set of problems, and there is no indication one type has more or less problems/dysfunctions/etc. than the other type.

    So, such must be factored out.

    Thus we're left with the simple distinction that the romantic example of the two types is different, as one is SS and the other is OS, and that is absolutely huge, huge, huge in the way the romance and love is played out with respect to kids and teens observing the example of each.

    So heterosexual kids and teens will benefit, will not be unconciously confused, by their heterosexual parents' romantic relationship .. where they would be unconsciously compromised and likely to a dysfunctional degree in their own romantic relationships as a result by observing their parents' romantic relationship if their parents were a SS couple.

    Likewise, homosexual kids and teens will beneift, wil not be unconsciously confused, by their homosexual parents' romantic relationship when all are of the same sex, both parents and kids, .. where they would be unconsciously compromised and likely to a dysfunctional degree in their own romantic relationships as a result by observing their parents' romantic relationship if their parents were an OS couple or their parents were an SS couple of a sex different from their kids.

    We pretty much know now that homosexuality and heterosexuality is not a genetic result, meaning that if a homosexual woman conceives she's not more likely to produce a homosexual child than a heterosexual woman would.

    We also know that the psychology of gender attraction is determined during gestation, and that once the appropriate physiological and neuropsychological hormonal blasts have occurred prior to birth, the nature and strength of sexuality is pretty much a done deal.

    What these two pieces of knowledge tell us is that we simply cannot yet predict if a person is homosexual or heterosexual until long after birth, often not until pre-teen or teen age.

    What we do know, however, is that roughly 88% of the population is heterosexual, 10% of the population is bisexual, and 2% of the population is homosexual, the 2% being those most likely to want to form a SS committed romantic monogamous relationship.

    Thus 10% of kids will be at least somewhat challenged adversely by their parents' role-modeling no matter what their parents' orientation, SS or OS.

    And 2% of kids will be challenged adversely by their parents' role-modeling if their parents are an OS couple.

    But a whopping 88% of kids and teens will be challenged adversely by their parents' role-modeling (89% when factoring in the different sex of SS kids and their SS parents), and to a likely dysfunctional degree in their own romantic relationships, if their parents are an SS couple.

    That reality -- and yes, like it or not, that is reality -- is the only rational argument against SS couples adopting a kid or teen when that potential adoptee's sexual orientation is not known.

    Since we have yet to discover how to determine in very young children their true sexual orientation for a scientific litmus-test certainty, we don't know if a SS couple is about to adopt a SS person or an OS person .. but the odds tell us there's a huge 88% chance the adoptee will be an OS person.

    Thus with OS couples adopting, the odds are sufficiently high that they will get a child who will receive paramount important proper romantic relationship role-modeling from them.

    And with SS couples adopting -- or using artificial insemination to conceive and bare a child in the case of female SS couples -- the odds are sufficiently high that they will get a child who will receive paramount important improper and thus dysfunction-creating romantic relationship role-modeling from them.

    Because of the terrible damage improper dysfunction-creating role-modeling in this romantic relationship fashion creates, it is highly recommended that SS couples do not have children by any means.

    Currently, "marriage" allows children.

    Thus another reason why SS couples should not be allowed to marry.

    A young OS girl needs to see her mom related with a man (her dad or step-dad) if she is to learn unconsciously appropriate gender roles in romance.

    And a young SS boy needs to see his two dads (or dad and step-dad) relate with each other romantically if he is to learn unconsciously appropriate gender roles in romance.

    The damage improper role-modeling of this nature does to kids can be catastrophic in their own subsequent romantic relationships.

    I mean, an OS boy observing the excess physicality of his two dads in relationship will be in for a painfully hurt and rejected shock when he tries the same with his girlfriend. ...
    This is reality, whether ideologues accept it or not.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  4. #34
    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 Ontologuy View Post
    ]
    This is reality, whether ideologues accept it or not.
    So now adoption agencies will have to actually look at real information instead of generalities about whether a particular couple will make good parents for a particular child.

    Somehow that doesn't support your thesis.

  5. #35
    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 Dickieboy View Post
    Since you pontificate that 'the process of adoption is judicial' then you agreed with Scalia when he said this (from the OP):



    Presuming of course that said state legislation/regulation has been challenged/reviewed/supported by state judicial review...?
    I agree it's irrelevant. Adoption is a judicial procedure that determines what's in the best interest of the child on a case by case basis. So if Scalia is saying that generalities by certain psycholgists about same sex couples have any place in this debate, he's wrong. The procedure already is geared toward the best interest of the child. If Scalia's "experts" are right, then SS couples won't be able to adopt. But of course, they aren't, and Scalia is just trying to inflame and insult.

  6. #36
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

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

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    ...If Scalia's "experts" are right, then SS couples won't be able to adopt. But of course, they aren't, and Scalia is just trying to inflame and insult.
    So his 'experts' being the states who presumably represent the will of the people are wrong? And Scalia bringing this obvious point up is merely trying to inflame and insult?
    "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure" - 2006 Senator Obama...leadership failure indeed!

  7. #37
    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 Dickieboy View Post
    So his 'experts' being the states who presumably represent the will of the people are wrong? And Scalia bringing this obvious point up is merely trying to inflame and insult?
    uhhh, what?

    Adoption is a judicial detemination. It's not done via elections. Every state I know of looks to the best interest of the child in determine whether a couple gets to adopt a particular child.

    So what exactly is your incoherent beef?

  8. #38
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

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

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    uhhh, what?

    Adoption is a judicial detemination. It's not done via elections. Every state I know of looks to the best interest of the child in determine whether a couple gets to adopt a particular child.

    So what exactly is your incoherent beef?
    Did you not read my post #31? The quote pulled from the OP clearly stated that some states do not allow adoption by SS couples thus judicial review is not an option in their case.
    "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure" - 2006 Senator Obama...leadership failure indeed!

  9. #39
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,951
    Blog Entries
    25

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    I don't think that there has been any in-depth study to prove one way or the other. So I do not think his question was that far out of line. I would assume, you all know what assumptions do to you, that a child is better off being raised by a two parent family. Since I have seen or heard of nothing to prove one way or the other, that statement of mine applies to both straight and gay couples.

    I would much rather see a child raised by a gay couple than spend his childhood life in an orphanage. My opinion.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  10. #40
    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 Dickieboy View Post
    Did you not read my post #31? The quote pulled from the OP clearly stated that some states do not allow adoption by SS couples thus judicial review is not an option in their case.
    Yeah, and how is that relevant to the fact that if they don't exclude them courts still have to determine that a particular couple is appropriate for a particular adopted child.

    You keep missing the point and always will.

Page 4 of 123 FirstFirst ... 234561454104 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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