• 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

Cephus said:
I don't give a crap if it's a right, it's discriminatory to give it to one group of people and not to another. That's the whole argument. If you can't get away allowing white people to marry, but not black people, you can't allow letting straight people marry but not gay people. The only basis the Prop 8 people have for claiming gays shouldn't marry is religion and religion cannot be used as an argument in a government court.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's discrimination. The question is rather or not the discrimination is justified. The law has a long history of treating the sexes differently when it's justified, such as separate bathrooms or a female TSA agent searching women's luggage.

Discrimination by itself isn't a bad thing. It's just a tool and it has to be used properly.
 
Jerry said:
I don't see why; we don't ban any other marriage on the basis that one or both parties has any other birth defect.
Click to expand...
Absolutely true and valid -- marriage should not be banned because one or both partners -- either the man or the woman -- have a birth defect(s).

Thus similar but civil union domestic partnerships (a civil union domestic partnership being the class that marriage fals in in the eyes of government) should not be banned because one or both partners of those relationships has a birth defect(s).


Jerry said:
Homosexuality can be a birth defect and ssm still be allowed.
Click to expand...
Except that civil union domestic SS partnerships is not "marriage", by definition.

Such SS couple civil union domestic partnerships should be allowed and recognized by government and private enterprise ..

.. But they are rightly called homarriages, not marriages.

A win-win scenario for everyone.
 
Jerry said:
Yes, it's discrimination. The question is rather or not the discrimination is justified. The law has a long history of treating the sexes differently when it's justified, such as separate bathrooms or a female TSA agent searching women's luggage.

Discrimination by itself isn't a bad thing. It's just a tool and it has to be used properly.
Click to expand...

I would argue that discrimination *IS* inherently a bad thing. Separate bathrooms and TSA agents are really choices, they are not mandated by law. A man doesn't get arrested if he goes into the women's restroom. They are rules designed for the comfort of the people involved. Come up with a better example of something that is actually legally-mandated discrimination.
 
Cephus said:
I would argue that discrimination *IS* inherently a bad thing. Separate bathrooms and TSA agents are really choices, they are not mandated by law. A man doesn't get arrested if he goes into the women's restroom. They are rules designed for the comfort of the people involved. Come up with a better example of something that is actually legally-mandated discrimination.
Click to expand...
When I lived in CA and later NY, using the other sex's restroom could get you arrested. It's not it's own statute, but in practice the common law is to arrest such offenders for anything from disrupting the peace to sexual assault, depending on the circumstances. But all that is besides the point, I could come up with other examples, such as Hooters only hiring women for wait staff.

My point is just because it's discrimination doesn't mean it's automatically a bad thing by default; and so saying "that's discrimination" doesn't mean anything.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
I don't give a crap if it's a right, it's discriminatory to give it to one group of people and not to another. That's the whole argument. If you can't get away allowing white people to marry, but not black people, you can't allow letting straight people marry but not gay people. The only basis the Prop 8 people have for claiming gays shouldn't marry is religion and religion cannot be used as an argument in a government court.
Click to expand...
Should cat-owners be allowed to enter their cats in a dog show?

No?

But that's being discriminatory against one group (cat-owners) and not discriminatory against another (dog-owners)!

But you say that cats don't belong in a dog show by definition?

Well, neither do SS couples belong in a marriage, by definition.

There is no discrimination when the foundational discrimination test -- definitive propriety -- renders a discrimination charge inapplicable.

Marriage, since before the agrarian revolution, was orginially created and remains all about "a man and a woman as husband and wife".

If it isn't that, it isn't marriage.

SS couples committed romantic relationships should be called homarriage, just like the distinction between "man" and "woman".

These SS civil union domestic partnerships should be recognized by government and private enterprise just like other civil union domestic partnerships (which is the class that both marriage and homarriage fall under in the government's eyes).

But, because they are obviously different, the two types of civil union domestic partnerships should have different names, obviously.

Thus cat-owners enter their cats in a .. wait for it .. .. cat show, not a dog show, with all the same show trimmings.

And, logically, rationally, SS couples engage in a homarriage, not a marriage, and all domestic partnership civil unions have the same trimmings recognized by government and private enterprise.

It's the smart, really smart, and respectful win-win thing to do.
 
Jerry said:
When I lived in CA and later NY, using the other sex's restroom could get you arrested. It's not it's own statute, but in practice the common law is to arrest such offenders for anything from disrupting the peace to sexual assault, depending on the circumstances. But all that is besides the point, I could come up with other examples, such as Hooters only hiring women for wait staff. My point is just because it's discrimination doesn't mean it's automatically a bad thing by default.
Click to expand...

You're still not producing anything. Hooters is a private company, not the government. There is still no law against using an opposite sex bathroom, if nobody is around and nobody complains, you're totally in the clear. You're arguing *OTHER* things, not using the bathroom. You still haven't found a place where discrimination, by the government, is acceptable.

Try again.
 
Cephus said:
You're still not producing anything. Hooters is a private company, not the government. There is still no law against using an opposite sex bathroom, if nobody is around and nobody complains, you're totally in the clear. You're arguing *OTHER* things, not using the bathroom. You still haven't found a place where discrimination, by the government, is acceptable.

Try again.
Click to expand...
This is all a tangent anyway, I'm not going any deeper into it. Hooters is the perfect example because they went through a ton of litigation over years, a very famous series of legal events, and a lot of state and federal laws were brought into question as a result. I've produced enough examples that a reasonable person of average intelligence could receive my message: just because it's discrimination doesn't mean it's wrong.

When you cry "that's discrimination" just understand that it doesn't have the meaning you intend, and so your point won't be received.

Yeah, it's discrimination....that doesn't matter...at all.
 
Ontologuy said:
.. But they are rightly called homarriages, not marriages.

.
Click to expand...

How about some hypothetical marriage involving a man who advertises for a sexual slave and says he is into Biting, Breast/Nipple Torture, Cling Film,Electrotorture ,Sex In Public; Humiliation; Klismaphilia , Knife/Needle Play and Pain -- should that be called a pervertomarriage?
 
Gardener said:
How about some hypothetical marriage involving a man who advertises for a sexual slave and says he is into Biting, Breast/Nipple Torture, Cling Film,Electrotorture ,Sex In Public; Humiliation; Klismaphilia , Knife/Needle Play and Pain -- should that be called a pervertomarriage?
Click to expand...
By definition, since before the agrarian revolution, marriage is between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

If it isn't a man and a woman as husband and wife, it isn't marriage, and for so many understandable reasons.

Since SS couples are not a man and a woman as husband and wife, they aren't, logically, rationally, with respect to the foundational appeal to definitive propriety, a marriage.

Thus, in a win-win scenario, I suggest homarriage for SS couples, a civil union domestic partnership recognized by both government and private enterprise.

What about that intelligent reasoning do you not comprehend?

What about that intelligent reasoning do you oppose?
 
Ontologuy said:
What about that intelligent reasoning do you oppose?
Click to expand...

Besides the fact it is neither intelligent nor a product of reason, you mean?
 
Jerry said:
When you cry "that's discrimination" just understand that it doesn't have the meaning you intend, and so your point won't be received.

Yeah, it's discrimination....that doesn't matter...at all.
Click to expand...

Because I was talking about government discrimination and you couldn't find an example. I'll take that as an admission of defeat.
 
Gardener said:
Besides the fact it is neither intelligent nor a product of reason, you mean?
Click to expand...
Obviously, you are wrong on both counts.

I can't help but wonder why.

Maybe it's implied in your signature and you erroneously associate marriage with religion.
 
Cephus said:
You're still not producing anything. Hooters is a private company, not the government. There is still no law against using an opposite sex bathroom, if nobody is around and nobody complains, you're totally in the clear. You're arguing *OTHER* things, not using the bathroom. You still haven't found a place where discrimination, by the government, is acceptable.

Try again.
Click to expand...

Different physical standards, based on gender, for the same rank/MOS/pay in the military. Different federal tax bills for the same income. Different student admission standards to a gov't run college. Hiring preferences based on veteran/disabled status in the gov't. Use of age and smoking to set gov't mandated (PPACA) medical care insurance rates, yet not allowing gender or obesity to be considered. Minority owned small business contract preferences.
 
Ontologuy said:
Obviously, you are wrong on both counts.

I can't help but wonder why.

Maybe it's implied in your signature and you erroneously associate marriage with religion.
Click to expand...

I just think it is amusing when people lack the self-awareness necessary to realize the degree to which they indulge in projection due to their repressed feelings about their own sexual proclivities.

Hypothetically, of course.
 
Gardener said:
I just think it is amusing when people lack the self-awareness necessary to realize the degree to which they indulge in projection due to their repressed feelings about their own sexual proclivities.

Hypothetically, of course.
Click to expand...
Then, considering your signature, your obvious issues with religion, and your apparently erroneous association of religion with marriage, there's a lot about such projection you've learned by yourself ..

.. Hypothetically speaking, of course. :roll:

Clearly, though, you choose not to have a fact-based discussion on the matter, as your mindset is already made up, and your again not-so-veiled ad hominem tendency is really the best that you have.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
That question is not only worth exploring, it demands exploring in this case. Not to do so would be a dereliction of duty. The Supreme Court is not held to the confines of what people like you consider to be politically correct... nor should it be.
Click to expand...

They call this believing one's own bull****.
 
Cephus said:
I don't give a crap if it's a right, it's discriminatory to give it to one group of people and not to another. That's the whole argument. If you can't get away allowing white people to marry, but not black people, you can't allow letting straight people marry but not gay people. The only basis the Prop 8 people have for claiming gays shouldn't marry is religion and religion cannot be used as an argument in a government court.
Click to expand...

Which bring's home the point: why is the state in the marriage business in the first place?
 
Jerry said:
It's called 'same-sex' marriage, not 'gay'-marriage for a reason. I'm hetero, I cannot marry a man. I am under all the same restrictions as everyone else.
Click to expand...

So your freedom is being curtailed and you are not being allowed to do things other people can.

Discrimination, in other words.

I.lose respect.for conservatives who want peoples freedom to live their lives as they see fit curtailed. It destroys all credibility in regards to individual liberty.
 
What if...? said:
So your freedom is being curtailed and you are not being allowed to do things other people can.

Discrimination, in other words.

I.lose respect.for conservatives who want peoples freedom to live their lives as they see fit curtailed. It destroys all credibility in regards to individual liberty.
Click to expand...
Where have I taken an anti-ssm position on this thread?
Jerry said:
That's how I see this. If you have a violent history, you shouldn't be able to walk into wall-mart and buy a gun. If you yell 'fire' in a theater, you are harming people, and should do some time. So, unless your marriage creates a net harm to society, you should be allowed to do it. All else being equal I don't see how same-sex marriage is any more harmful than other marriages we already allow. To the same logic I don't see why pot should be illegal while alcohol and tobacco are legal. If the purpose is to reduce consumption of harmful drugs, then alcohol and tobacco are the first to go.

That being said, the 50% divorce rate is what is causing a net harm to society, and so that should be the focus of the 'family values' types, not the sexes of the people marrying.
Click to expand...
Saying that I'm under the same restrictions as everyone else is not a statement against ssm. It's just a fact.
 
Last edited:
"there’s considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not"


No...Scalia....you are wrong. The overwhelming number of sociologists and psychologists have concluded that children living in same-sex parental homes are no different than children living in two parent heterosexual homes. There are perhaps a handful of conservative sociologists that disagree....but there is not "Considerable disagreement"....THAT is an outright lie.
 
disneydude said:
"there’s considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not"


No...Scalia....you are wrong. The overwhelming number of sociologists and psychologists have concluded that children living in same-sex parental homes are no different than children living in two parent heterosexual homes. There are perhaps a handful of conservative sociologists that disagree....but there is not "Considerable disagreement"....THAT is an outright lie.
Click to expand...
You people keep taking everything at face value.

Stop that.

From where I sit, Scalia is asking the questions which need to be asked so that pro-ssm can present their argument and hit a home-run.
 
Jerry said:
You people keep taking everything at face value.

Stop that.

From where I sit, Scalia is asking the questions which need to be asked so that pro-ssm can present their argument and hit a home-run.
Click to expand...

He should at least be honest. I don't think that is too much to ask of a Supreme Court justice. There is no way that Scalia can honestly saw that there is "considerable disagreement"....
 
disneydude said:
He should at least be honest. I don't think that is too much to ask of a Supreme Court justice. There is no way that Scalia can honestly saw that there is "considerable disagreement"....
Click to expand...
I don't think he's being dishonest. I think he's pointing to a concern pro-ssm aut to be able to adequately address. And pro-ssm should...this should be easy.

Remember that Scalia is not the opponent. If SCOTUS rules on this at all, my money is that a strong majority will rule in favor of ssm, including Scalia.
 
Jerry said:
I don't think he's being dishonest. I think he's pointing to a concern pro-ssm aut to be able to adequately address. And pro-ssm should...this should be easy.

Remember that Scalia is not the opponent. If SCOTUS rules on this at all, my money is that a strong majority will rule in favor of ssm, including Scalia.
Click to expand...

He is either being COMPLETELY dishonest.....or he is completely ignorant. With Scalia, it could be either.
 
Jerry said:
I don't think he's being dishonest. I think he's pointing to a concern pro-ssm aut to be able to adequately address. And pro-ssm should...this should be easy.

Remember that Scalia is not the opponent. If SCOTUS rules on this at all, my money is that a strong majority will rule in favor of ssm, including Scalia.
Click to expand...

I agree. It was a very valid question. One that I do not think that any in-depth study has been done on. At least that I could find googling. There was one small study, but the sample wasn't enough to determine one way or the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom