• 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

Fisher said:
Now are the leftists and gays just so convinced they are going to win that they think they are going to win 9-0 as well. LOL.
Click to expand...

People would like to see that but hardly anyone thinks this is likely.

Fisher said:
I disagree. I have no issue with SSM but it is not a Constitutional issue---just a political one.
Click to expand...

I think there are significant questions regarding equal protection.
 
Deuce said:
People would like to see that but hardly anyone thinks this is likely.



I think there are significant questions regarding equal protection.
Click to expand...

I really expect the ruling will be the marriages before the ban are valid and the ban is valid which gives a backhanded first precedence for there to be gay marriage if a state desires. The next step will be a full faith and credit case which DOMA might be if not an enumerated powers decision. I think that is going to be as far as it goes this time around.
 
Fisher said:
I really expect the ruling will be the marriages before the ban are valid and the ban is valid which gives a backhanded first precedence for there to be gay marriage if a state desires. The next step will be a full faith and credit case which DOMA might be if not an enumerated powers decision. I think that is going to be as far as it goes this time around.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The nice thing is these two cases put the conservatives on the bench in a bind. If they want to argue for Prop 8 and against federal constitutional preemption, then they will have trouble upholding DOMA and its federal intervention in state law. They can't have it both ways, though of course Scalia and Thomas are total hacks and don't seem to care about coherency in their opinions, just their political agenda.
 
Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's problematic to assume the justices will use public opinion at all in their decision. If they made a habit of that corporations would have never had personhood nor would the Obamacare fine for not buying health insurance stood the test.
 
head of joaquin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.”
Click to expand...

Presuming of course that said state legislation/regulation has been challenged/reviewed/supported by state judicial review...?
 
Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

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/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-case.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 
Top Cat said:
Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children | TPMDC


What an intolerant ****.
Click to expand...
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-and-sexuality/155092-help-me-understand-anti-ssm-argument-3.html#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. ...
Click to expand...
This is reality, whether ideologues accept it or not.
 
Ontologuy said:
]
This is reality, whether ideologues accept it or not.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dickieboy said:
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...?
Click to expand...

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.
 
head of joaquin said:
...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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Dickieboy said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
head of joaquin said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Top Cat said:
Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children | TPMDC


What an intolerant ****.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dickieboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Perotista said:
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.
Click to expand...

And that's exactly what the court in an adoption proceeding seeks to determine: what is in the best interest of the child. That is the case whether gays are allowed to adopt or not. Allowing gays to adopt won't change that.

So Scalia's question is inflamatory and a deflection from the issue.
 
head of joaquin said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're right...carry on!...:lamo
 
Not any more than crazy/stupid hetero parents or single parents are harmful to children.
 
Dickieboy said:
You're right...carry on!...:lafmo
Click to expand...

No, no, don't let me interrupt your homophobic memefest.

Still, explain, since Scalia didn't, how it makes any difference if gay couples are allowed to adopt since either way, there is a judicial proceeding to determine that the adoption is in the best interest of the child. Go into detail using Scaliaspeak.
 
head of joaquin said:
No, no, don't let me interrupt your homophobic memefest.

Still, explain, since Scalia didn't, how it makes any difference if gay couples are allowed to adopt since either way, there is a judicial proceeding to determine that the adoption is in the best interest of the child. Go into detail using Scaliaspeak.
Click to expand...

I must refrain as I feel I have derailed your persistently consistent conservophobic memefest enough...by all means, continue...:coffeepap
 
Dickieboy said:
I must refrain as I feel I have derailed your persistently consistent conservophobic memefest enough...by all means, continue...:cofffeepap
Click to expand...

Translated: can't answer the question.

NEXT DISCREDITED RIGHTWING MEME!
 
Fisher said:
Now are the leftists and gays just so convinced they are going to win that they think they are going to win 9-0 as well. LOL.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you pulled that gem from.
 
head of joaquin said:
And that's exactly what the court in an adoption proceeding seeks to determine: what is in the best interest of the child. That is the case whether gays are allowed to adopt or not. Allowing gays to adopt won't change that.

So Scalia's question is inflamatory and a deflection from the issue.
Click to expand...

I'll be honest, gay marriage is not a hot button issue with me, not like the debt/defict is. So his question really does not bother me. The piling up of debt can drive this country to ruin, whether gay marriage is approved or not, either way it won't destroy this country like the debt can. I hope it happens, but even if the court upholds the ban, gay marriage will happen state by state instead of all of once. Even if the court strikes down the ban, it will effect only one state.

I think the SCOTUS will punt, then the 9th circuit court ruling stands which struck down the ban. But the ruling will only apply to California.
 
head of joaquin said:
Translated: can't answer the question.
Click to expand...

Just for my edification please point out the question you asked in #44 that I can't answer...:lamo

NEXT DISCREDITED EXTREME LEFTWING MEME!...or merely exposed another lie...

OR most probably an attempt at stratagem 14 Trotz Niederlage den Sieg verkünden...CLASSIC leftwing tactic!
 
Perotista said:
I'll be honest, gay marriage is not a hot button issue with me, not like the debt/defict is. So his question really does not bother me. The piling up of debt can drive this country to ruin, whether gay marriage is approved or not, either way it won't destroy this country like the debt can. I hope it happens, but even if the court upholds the ban, gay marriage will happen state by state instead of all of once. Even if the court strikes down the ban, it will effect only one state.

I think the SCOTUS will punt, then the 9th circuit court ruling stands which struck down the ban. But the ruling will only apply to California.
Click to expand...

I think you're probably right. It isn't a hot button issue with me either, but I respect and support those who are concerned about their right to marry.

Frankly I'd dump the whole "marriage" verbiage from civil law and only allow for civil unions as the only legally binding form of domestic partnerships, which would apply to consenting adults, gay or straight. I'd let religions use the word "marriage" for their ceremonies but they would have no legal force and they could have whatever restrictions or requirements the particular church wanted. They can have the word as far as I'm concerned. Civil law should rid itself of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom