• 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

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

Yes, based on all the questioning about standing, SCOTUS does seem to be looking for a way out of deciding anything. (hence my statement about hesitating to rule at all)

But then again, blogs and tweets based on court transcripts would have lead you to believe Obamacare was being overturned. So we'll see!
 
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!

When posters use emoticons, you know they're losing the argument.
 
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.

Or maybe not. You may believe you have the court decision pegged, and you may be right. But you just keep on counting those chickens.
 
Or maybe not. You may believe you have the court decision pegged, and you may be right. But you just keep on counting those chickens.

I make no such presumption. I'm just criticizing Scalia's obtuse and inflamatory question.
 
I make no such presumption. I'm just criticizing Scalia's obtuse and inflamatory question.

Oh yes, you have been. I quoted where you plainly did. As to that last, you lack standing to make that assessment breathe life. As it is, just another example of hate speaking.
 
After working in public education for over 5 years, I think the question should be asked, "Are opposite sex parents 'harmful' to children". Because I have PLENTY of evidence to show that simply being heterosexual doesn't make you a good parent.

Agreed to both. The question was a legitimate one and asked fairly. AND I too have seen the range in heterosexual (and homosexual) child rearing (no pun intended, but hey, now that it's out there :mrgreen:).
 
I think that the gay marriage laws as is are unconstitutional. I'm also not one that believes there's substantially higher likelihood of a child having issues growing up with homosexual parents than with regular ones.

That said, the outrage over Scalia's statement is ridiculous. The entire point of a judge in this situation is to ask questions to gather the most information and look at ALL SIDES and potential issues of a case. Like it or not, there is seemingly a divide in terms of what some people think in terms of the potential impact of homosexual couples raising children. Simply acknowledging that and asking about it is not out of line, bigoted, or irresponsible for a judge to do. On the contrary, that's part of what a judge SHOULD be doing as long as they're not definitively taking a stance during questioning one way or another...which there is no indication Scalia is doing such. Basically, what I see is a lot of people feeling like the ruling should absolutely go one particular way and attacking and lambasting anyone who dares to actually address this in a way that a court case should be addressed.
 
I think that the gay marriage laws as is are unconstitutional. I'm also not one that believes there's substantially higher likelihood of a child having issues growing up with homosexual parents than with regular ones.

That said, the outrage over Scalia's statement is ridiculous. The entire point of a judge in this situation is to ask questions to gather the most information and look at ALL SIDES and potential issues of a case. Like it or not, there is seemingly a divide in terms of what some people think in terms of the potential impact of homosexual couples raising children. Simply acknowledging that and asking about it is not out of line, bigoted, or irresponsible for a judge to do. On the contrary, that's part of what a judge SHOULD be doing as long as they're not definitively taking a stance during questioning one way or another...which there is no indication Scalia is doing such. Basically, what I see is a lot of people feeling like the ruling should absolutely go one particular way and attacking and lambasting anyone who dares to actually address this in a way that a court case should be addressed.

Again, since adoption is in each case a judicial determination that centers on what is in the best interest of the particular child, what was Scalia's question intended to illuminate? The determination is going to be made in each case whether gays are allowed to adopt or not.

I can't for the life of me see the point except to inflame, which is something he usually does. Scalia is a bully and he relishes attacking and insulting minorities. That's his record.
 
I think that the gay marriage laws as is are unconstitutional. I'm also not one that believes there's substantially higher likelihood of a child having issues growing up with homosexual parents than with regular ones.

That said, the outrage over Scalia's statement is ridiculous. The entire point of a judge in this situation is to ask questions to gather the most information and look at ALL SIDES and potential issues of a case. Like it or not, there is seemingly a divide in terms of what some people think in terms of the potential impact of homosexual couples raising children. Simply acknowledging that and asking about it is not out of line, bigoted, or irresponsible for a judge to do. On the contrary, that's part of what a judge SHOULD be doing as long as they're not definitively taking a stance during questioning one way or another...which there is no indication Scalia is doing such. Basically, what I see is a lot of people feeling like the ruling should absolutely go one particular way and attacking and lambasting anyone who dares to actually address this in a way that a court case should be addressed.

I agree it SHOULDN'T be a big deal and I agree it doesn't affect his eventual decision, but I think asking WHY he asked is a fair point. As others have mentioned, adoption is rarely a rubber stamp process, but one in which different circumstances are evaluated individually. And as I noted in my last post, we have plenty of evidence of children being "screwed up" from being raised by heterosexual parents. So knowing that adoption is an individual circumstance and that heterosexual parents can screw up a child as well, why is Scalia asking a lawyer a question which would be better asked of sociologists?

I'm not saying Scalia had ulterior motives, it just does seem a strange question to ask, without having context behind why he asked.
 
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.

I can go with that. Actually my marriage isn't recognized by some of the very religious either. Since I married a Thai gal in a Buddhist ceremony at Wat Tattong in Bangkok. But I had the foresight if you will, to get the army's permission and then have the marriage certificate translated and notarized by JUSMAGTHAI SJA. So the marriage is legal and recognized by all except some churches since I didn't get married in a church. But that doesn't bother me a bit.
 
The issues and ramifications inherent in same sex marriage are not settled law or science. That is why this case or any other comes before the Supreme Court.

This particular legal conflict arose when the people of the State of California, the most liberal state in the union, rejected same sex marriage in a popular vote. Because they were rejected by the people, the proponents of same sex marriage have taken the position that the people didn't have a constitutional right to vote on that issue.

Obviously the California voters are not convinced that same sex parents would be of benefit to children, so if a Supreme Court Justice did not ask that exact question, he would not be pursuing all questions that are raised simply by the fact of this case coming before the Supreme Court.

It is the job of the proponent's attorney to have facts and figures at hand to satisfactorily answer Scalia's question. Hautily taking the position that no questions regarding parental fitness should be asked ignores why the case is here in the first place. If you're going to go before the court, you have to prove all aspects of your case, not simply assert your superiority.
 
Last edited:
I agree it SHOULDN'T be a big deal and I agree it doesn't affect his eventual decision, but I think asking WHY he asked is a fair point. As others have mentioned, adoption is rarely a rubber stamp process, but one in which different circumstances are evaluated individually. And as I noted in my last post, we have plenty of evidence of children being "screwed up" from being raised by heterosexual parents. So knowing that adoption is an individual circumstance and that heterosexual parents can screw up a child as well, why is Scalia asking a lawyer a question which would be better asked of sociologists?

I'm not saying Scalia had ulterior motives, it just does seem a strange question to ask, without having context behind why he asked.

I don't have issue with people wondering why he would ask such a thing. My issue is immediately suggesting it makes him an "intolerant ****", declaring it as clear "hatemongering", or indication of him being a "royal ass" who should recuse himself. The response you described wouldn't be "outrage" but simple reasonable curiosity regarding what the purpose of the inquiry was. My comment specifically was aimed at those seemingly outraged over the mere fact he'd state it and leaping to significant assumptions from moment one.
 
No more harmful than the allowance we have for straight parents to harm their children. Parents are parents and they will screw most kids up somehow. This wanting a guarantee that no kid will be screwed up by allowing gay marriage should be turned on straight marriage also if it is truly a concern. It won't be because even scalia knows it is damned near impossible to stop, and no parents are perfect. but if they want to do something about parents screwing their kids up i suggest they focus on the married people who can actually reproduce by accident.
 
I don't have issue with people wondering why he would ask such a thing. My issue is immediately suggesting it makes him an "intolerant ****", declaring it as clear "hatemongering", or indication of him being a "royal ass" who should recuse himself. The response you described wouldn't be "outrage" but simple reasonable curiosity regarding what the purpose of the inquiry was. My comment specifically was aimed at those seemingly outraged over the mere fact he'd state it and leaping to significant assumptions from moment one.

I would say that reasoning is sound considering no one wants to stop straight parents from having kids because they might not be capable of raising them without problems. It is the same old story. they make up a reason to be offended that does not make any sense. If non screwed up kids was actually a concern we would focus on straight people first because they screw up the most kids. That is why the idea is prejudiced. No one really cares much about stopping completely incompetant straight people from breeding. As a matter of fact many people wish to encourage straight people who screw up big time to be forced to raise children out of mistakes. What better way to show you endorse the screwing up of american kids than to try and force screw ups who cannot figure out BC, condoms, or simply not humping to raise their little mistakes.
 
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
This is reality, whether ideologues accept it or not.

This has all been proven invalid countless times. Please stop posting misinformation that is not credible.
 
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.

Maybe we should investigate if conservatism is bad for children as well. I mean, think of the children right? Gimme a break.
 
I don't know where you pulled that gem from.

I have a mine filled with them. Thank God for Obama maintaining a giant pool of unemployed workers. Makes it much easier to oppress the ones who dig dig dig for peanuts for me. :spank:
 
Maybe we should investigate if conservatism is bad for children as well. I mean, think of the children right? Gimme a break.
Or maybe we should just investigate what's good for children.
 
Or maybe we should just investigate what's good for children.

Conservative, liberal, gay, straight ALL have children that have been raised just fine. Unless you can show me where the MAJORITY of children raised by any group are somehow harmful, then there shouldn't even be an investigation.

And along with saying some group is "harmful" to raise children, you would have to show why. Also even the definition of "harmful" is subjective to some views. For instance, there are some conservatives feel that raising children without god in their lives is "harmful" to the child. That's THEIR interpretation of harmful. That's not necessarily the reality of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom