Page 81 of 123 FirstFirst ... 3171798081828391 ... LastLast
Results 801 to 810 of 1229

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

  1. #801
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    I didn't say any such thing - I don't know the answer - I was simply saying that Scalia was posing the question because in some people's minds it's an open question due to the limited experiential data available. Scalia didn't take a position one way or the other in his question and the title of the thread gives the impression he did.
    The thing is, it's not limited. There's 40 years of data of conclusive data that point in only one direction. Kids of SS couples live the same kinds of lives as kids of OS couples, perform just as well in school, earn just as much money, and are in just as good health. The data is there. Scalia cannot pretend otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    I take it you mean American jurisprudence, which also until a few decades ago, defined marriage to mean that men owned all the property.
    Plus husbands were legally permitted to rape their wives. Regardless of her consent, if they were married, he couldn't be prosecuted or divorced for raping her. That also started changing in 1975. Great tradition, huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Nope. I'd never compare interracial marriage to gay marriage.
    Constitutionally, the argument is the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Not me ... you're confused.
    I don't believe gay marriage should be covered by the 14th Amendment.
    So there's no Amendment analogy to be made.
    Good for you. Your belief is wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    I just saw this today and thought I'd reproduce it for moments like this ...
    Enjoy ...
    A checklist of fun!

    HERE YOU GO. REASONS WHY PEOPLE OPPOSE THE REDEFINITION OF "MARRIAGE:"
    Since you asked…

    1.) “Marriage” is the name of a sacrament that would be desecrated by redefining it. Christians are upset because it is like redefining “communion” to be something that is in opposition to their faith.
    Too bad. Christians don't own marriage and don't get to enforce their specific vision of it. Your religious position has no more weight than anyone else's, including those with no religion.

    2.) “Marriage” is a GENDER SPECIFIC version of a legal CIVIL CONTRACT. Gender specification is legal (e.g. gender-specific bathrooms, contract designations, maternity leave applications, college entrance forms, etc…). A civil contract should be extended to ALL people. However, by opening “marriage” and calling every union “marriage,” it opens the contract up to polygamists, incestuous relations, and anyone else.
    The first part of this is an unfounded assertion. The slippery slope argument is silly. Polygamy and incest are different laws informed by different reasons. SSM's legality has no bearing on either of them. Same with bestiality or pedophilia.

    3.) The redefinition of “marriage” has specific legal consequences on those who may have religious, moral or tradition views on the matter. They are FORCED (by default due to the law) to change their public moral position on the matter — even if the notion of gay “marriage” is in opposition to their faith or clear conscience.
    You don't have to change your moral positions at all. But the law does not have to conform to them.

    4.) Homosexuals are not fighting for “rights” of the contract. They are fighting for the NAME — and redefining what the name means — because they know that this would have legal consequences in the future.
    Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

    5.) The redefinition of “marriage” will have major implications for businesses or organizations that disagree with it. While churches will not be forced (at least now) to perform “marriages” for homosexuals, what happens with businesses, private citizens or other religious institutions or organizations? What would happen if a Christian bookstore hires a man who suddenly “comes out” a few months later and wants insurance to cover his “spouse?” A single definition will make it difficult (or nearly impossible) for a specific business to cater to the legal demands of others.
    Yes, it will have major implications. Those organizations will no longer be able to discriminate, the same way they couldn't discriminate against blacks after the civil rights movement. A Christian bookstore will have to conform to the same laws as every other bookstore. Merely because they represent themselves according to a specific religion does not grant them special treatment. And no, it will not be difficult to adhere to.

    6.) Liberals have promised that churches and religious institutions will receive “conscientious objector” status for such things. However, they didn’t quite embrace that when it came to religious colleges dealing with abortion and contraceptive coverage requirements from Obamacare.
    There is quite a different between not wishing to conduct a private ceremony at the behest of people who aren't in a contractual relationship with you and organizations seeking special treatment under the law. The constitution is quite clear.

    7.) The state pushing a redefinition of “marriage” results in the state taking a moral position on a controversial issue at the whims of that small fringe group — while demanding that people who derive morality from religion, faith, culture, tradition or any other reason remain silent.
    No, it doesn't. It's taking a legal position based on the constitution. Morality, religious or otherwise, is not a part of this discussion.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  2. #802
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

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

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    No we don't have plenty of experience.
    Yeah, we do.

    Tough to imagine how it affects MY marriage ... true.
    Good. Thank you.

    But ... how about if there was a movement to interpret, say, the 2nd Amendment, in such a way that it really DID mean someone is free to possess bazookas & operational tanks or even just unlicensed handguns? Or that despite the 1st Amendment, someone really CAN shout FIRE in a crowded theatre.

    Now ... those things may not affect you because no one knows where you live & you don't get out much, but would it be okay with you?

    If you say it would affect you, prove it. Not with a manufactured what-if ... but rather with the same kind of proof you were asking of me.
    Your analogy is a poor one. Unless you think at some point you might become gay and want to marry someone of the same gender, you have nothing in common with SSM; it doesn't affect you. If I never go into a theater nor go anywhere where someone with a bazooka, tank, or unlicensed handgun would also be, then it wouldn't affect me at all. However, though your former example MAY be possible (though one can expand the reference to screaming "fire" just about anywhere), your latter example is not possible. Therefore, since your analogy does not apply, there is no reason to respond to it since it is inconsistent with the issue of SSM.
    "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"

  3. #803
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

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

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    I just saw this today and thought I'd reproduce it for moments like this ...
    Enjoy ...


    HERE YOU GO. REASONS WHY PEOPLE OPPOSE THE REDEFINITION OF "MARRIAGE:"
    Since you asked…

    1.) “Marriage” is the name of a sacrament that would be desecrated by redefining it. Christians are upset because it is like redefining “communion” to be something that is in opposition to their faith.
    What Christians think is irrelevant. This is a governmental issue. Religion is inconsequential.

    2.) “Marriage” is a GENDER SPECIFIC version of a legal CIVIL CONTRACT. Gender specification is legal (e.g. gender-specific bathrooms, contract designations, maternity leave applications, college entrance forms, etc…). A civil contract should be extended to ALL people. However, by opening “marriage” and calling every union “marriage,” it opens the contract up to polygamists, incestuous relations, and anyone else.
    Slipperly slope argument is a logical fallacy and irrelevant.

    3.) The redefinition of “marriage” has specific legal consequences on those who may have religious, moral or tradition views on the matter. They are FORCED (by default due to the law) to change their public moral position on the matter — even if the notion of gay “marriage” is in opposition to their faith or clear conscience.
    No one is "forced" to change their public moral position on any matter. We still have people who profess their racism, publicly.

    4.) Homosexuals are not fighting for “rights” of the contract. They are fighting for the NAME — and redefining what the name means — because they know that this would have legal consequences in the future.
    Wrong. Personally, I don't care about the name, but separate but equal hasn't worked in the past.

    5.) The redefinition of “marriage” will have major implications for businesses or organizations that disagree with it. While churches will not be forced (at least now) to perform “marriages” for homosexuals, what happens with businesses, private citizens or other religious institutions or organizations? What would happen if a Christian bookstore hires a man who suddenly “comes out” a few months later and wants insurance to cover his “spouse?” A single definition will make it difficult (or nearly impossible) for a specific business to cater to the legal demands of others.
    Business will need to comply with the law. Their "morals" are irrelevant... as they are now. If a business refuses to offer benefits to those who are interracially married based on "morals" they will receive consequences.

    You seem to be arguing morals a lot. People can have their morals. And they need to follow the law. The former is irrelevant to the latter.

    6.) Liberals have promised that churches and religious institutions will receive “conscientious objector” status for such things. However, they didn’t quite embrace that when it came to religious colleges dealing with abortion and contraceptive coverage requirements from Obamacare.
    Separation of church and state. This is a stupid argument.

    7.) The state pushing a redefinition of “marriage” results in the state taking a moral position on a controversial issue at the whims of that small fringe group — while demanding that people who derive morality from religion, faith, culture, tradition or any other reason remain silent.
    No, this is not about morals at all. It is about research that demonstrates that one group is equal to a main task of marriage (child rearing) as the other. It also defines marriage similarly because, in essence there is no difference. Eliminate gender and there is no difference between traditional marriage and SSM.
    "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"

  4. #804
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

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

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    This is rightwing cant. Nobody is redefining marriage. Gays just want to get married, that's all.

    I refer you again to history: marriage used to mean that men controlled all the property (up until the 1970s in this country). So is that the tradition you want to hark back to?

    As I've noted before I'm for jettisoning the word "marriage" in civil law, and only having civil unions between consenting adults as the sole legal relationship for domestic partners. gay or straight. Then I'd give the word "marriage" to the churches and religions to do with what they want -- it just wouldn't have any force of law.

    But short of that, seems to me gay people should be allowed to participate in the legal system we have on an equal footing with everybody else.
    In bold. This has been my position for quite some time. Leave marriage to religion and all LEGAL aspects would be defined as civil unions, gay or straight.
    "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"

  5. #805
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

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

    Btw... if some "straights" think that civil unions are OK for gays, how come they reject them as being OK for THEM?

    And, an answer of "it's always been that way, or the like" is outright rejected as an appeal to tradition logical fallacy, so using that is invalid. Let's see if anyone can answer that question, logically and factually.
    "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"

  6. #806
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,257

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

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    This is rightwing cant. Nobody is redefining marriage. Gays just want to get married, that's all.

    I refer you again to history:
    marriage used to mean that men controlled all the property
    (up until the 1970s in this country). So is that the tradition you want to hark back to?

    As I've noted before
    I'm for jettisoning the word "marriage" in civil law,
    and only having civil unions between consenting adults as the sole legal relationship for domestic partners. gay or straight. Then I'd give the word "marriage" to the churches and religions to do with what they want -- it just wouldn't have any force of law.

    But short of that, seems to me
    gay people should be allowed to participate in the legal system
    we have on an equal footing with everybody else.
    1) men controlled the property ... as opposed tooooooo? Whom?
    2) no need to jettison traditional marriage to accomodate any particular demographic ... you can enter into a contract with anyone about anything already without calling it marriage.
    3) see # 2 above.

  7. #807
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,257

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

    Quote Originally Posted by marywollstonecraft View Post
    since gays who become parents are generally more likely to be planning to have children ... the likelihood of these poor examples would be considerably reduced.
    I guess you could argue for a licence to be a parent, which would apply equally to ALL, whether gay or straight (ie, all who wanted children would have to meet certain criteria proving that they were up to the job) .... but apart from the fact that such a proposition sounds pretty offensive to most people, it would be extremely difficult to police, especially among the hetero community.
    I'm afraid the affect on adopted young children of gay parents would NOT be considerably less/reduced relative to a traditional married couple.

  8. #808
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,257

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post


    Constitutionally, the argument is the same.
    mmmm ... no it's not. And you should hope it stays that way.



    Good for you. Your belief is wrong.
    I missed the USSC decision on that. Can you provide the link?



    A checklist of fun!
    Ain't it? You're kinda reduced to "okay okay okay ... let's just call it something other than marriage then." huh.



    ... . Your religious position has no more weight than anyone else's, including those with no religion.
    My religious position? Man are YOU ever a98461_common-saying_2-bark.jpg



    ... Polygamy and incest are different laws informed by different reasons. SSM's legality has no bearing on either of them. Same with bestiality or pedophilia.
    And what reasons might they be?


    .
    So there.

  9. #809
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,257

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Yeah, we do.


    Nope.



    Your analogy is a poor one.
    ....
    Nope again. As long as you're monkeying around with changing the intent of Amendments, might as well take a look at ALL of 'em again.

  10. #810
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,337

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

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    So there.
    Good morning, bubba.

    Enjoyed your cartoon! It will be interesting to see the ruling on this, for all concerned!

Page 81 of 123 FirstFirst ... 3171798081828391 ... 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
  •