Page 77 of 123 FirstFirst ... 2767757677787987 ... LastLast
Results 761 to 770 of 1229

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

  1. #761
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    And you'll see how wrong you are when the opinion comes out.
    Looks like you can't respond, but I'll just say that for all practical purposes no such right exists until the SCOTUS says so.

  2. #762
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

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

    To me the questions needing an answer are as follows:

    1. Does marriage between two consenting adults need to be sanctioned by the state?
    2. If so, and there is a legitimate state interest in doing so, what are those interests, or interest?
    3. Outside of matters like taxation, benefits, power of attorney, visitation rights etc that can be legislated for separately, does the state have any other compelling and necessary interest?
    4. If the answer is no, then the state shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.
    5. if yes, and the interests are solidified around the concept of procreation then the following needs to be answered.
    6. Does marriage between a man and a women posses any inherent benefit to society over all others, including polygamous marriages, and homosexual marriages?
    7. If so, what is this benefit, does this benefit carry with it such a compelling state interest that, the exclusion of all other marriage arrangements would be a necessary and proper function of the state to legislate.
    8. Is there an intrinsic value for one type of marriage over any other?
    9. Is there material proof, or evidence of any such claims?
    10. Does the right not to participate in the procreative process invalidate this state interest?
    11. Does the ability to manufacture a way to participate in the procreative process validate the marriage arrangement?
    12. Does a marriage that produces children of the genetic components of each parent have any value over one that produces children of only one, or perhaps none of the parents?
    13. Do the people through the state have a right and obligation to choose or favor one form of marriage over any other?
    14. If the state has a fundamental duty, and by a necessary function, the right to regulate marriage types, does this duty, or function carry with it, a responsibility to exclude certain types of marriage, and if so, how does the state decide what types and whom is excluded?
    15. If it is that the state does not carry this right and responsibility then gay marriage along with any other type of marriage should be allowed.
    16. If it does carry this right and responsibility, then gay marriage and polygamous marriage should not be allowed to continue.

    I disregard the gender sex question as it is argued for by the proponents of Prop 8. To me this is not an equal rights case, to me this is an social matter that depends greatly upon whether society as a function of itself has the right to regulate and legislate for its own posterity. As a matter of exceptional circumstances such as people marrying over the age of 50, or married couples that do not produce children, or divorced couples, and single parent households, is the virtue of a single defining criteria for marriage superior, (despite its apparent deficiencies in compartmentalizing the exceptions), to societies long term viability? Put another way, the intrinsic value of a marriage between a man and a women carries with it more value to society, and as such, should be held higher, above all others, and to the exclusion thereof, as the staple by which our society defines its family structure.


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  3. #763
    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 Somerville View Post
    HOW does same sex marriage constitute "redefining marriage for everyone else"?.
    It doesn't. It's just another incoherent conservative meme pretending to be an argument.

  4. #764
    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 Bronson View Post
    Marriage has never meant man + ? or woman + ?

    If you truly believe otherwise, than yes, you are a radical extremist
    Marriage meant men had all the property rights in most states up until 1975 or so.

    Is that the traditional marriage you're longing for?

  5. #765
    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 Jack Hays View Post
    The right to choose whom you marry.
    Not in informal speech. Grammar Nazis never get grammar right.

  6. #766
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,977
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    Not in informal speech. Grammar Nazis never get grammar right.
    False.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  7. #767
    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 Jack Hays View Post
    False.
    You got to love grammar nazis. They always get grammar wrong. I bet you have trouble with the subjunctive.

    You probably also think "it's me" is bad grammar because the first person isn't in the nominative, even though no English speaker would ever say "it's I" -- only a person who learns English as a second language would say that (short of Posh British English). Similarly, spoken and informal English has dropped "whom" entirely Even in formal speech, best to avoid it. It sounds archaic.

  8. #768
    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 head of joaquin View Post
    Marriage meant men had all the property rights in most states up until 1975 or so.

    Is that the traditional marriage you're longing for?
    The definition of marriage has always meant man + woman

    Not man + ? or woman + ?

    Women weren't slaves. Your hyperbole is laughable.

  9. #769
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,977
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    You got to love grammar nazis. They always get grammar wrong. I bet you have trouble with the subjunctive.

    You probably also think "it's me" is bad grammar because the first person isn't in the nominative, even though no English speaker would ever say "it's I" -- only a person who learns English as a second language would say that (short of Posh British English). Similarly, spoken and informal English has dropped "whom" entirely Even in formal speech, best to avoid it. It sounds archaic.
    If the subjunctive were necessary for this exchange then I would use it. Perhaps your circle has dropped "whom" but civilization is still defended elsewhere.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  10. #770
    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 Jack Hays View Post
    If the subjunctive were necessary for this exchange then I would use it. Perhaps your circle has dropped "whom" but civilization is still defended elsewhere.
    If I were you (and I'm not), I'd avoid using archaic forms. More to the point, I would follow usage and not grammar nazi scripts.

    In any case, you're boring me.

Page 77 of 123 FirstFirst ... 2767757677787987 ... 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
  •