• 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

When Justice Scalia says
there's considerable disagreement among -- among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a -- in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not
Click to expand...
he is either lying or incompetent because the American Sociological Assn filed an amicus brief in the case before the court

The social science consensus is both conclusive and clear: children fare just as well when they are raised by same-sex parents as when they are raised by opposite sex parents. This consensus holds true across a wide range of child outcome indicators and is supported by numerous nationally representative studies. Accordingly, assuming that either DOMA or Proposition 8 has any effect on whether children are raised by opposite-sex or same-sex parents, there is no basis to prefer opposite-sex parents over same-sex parents and neither DOMA nor Proposition 8 is justified.
Click to expand...

The American Psychological Assn also has issued public statements to the effect that same-sex parenting is not deleterious to the well-being of the children in such families

Justice Kennedy who seemed to be quite a bit more ambivalent about the case before the Court also seemed not to have read very much about same-sex parenting when he said
I -- I think there's -- there's substantial -- that there's substance to the point that sociological information is new. We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more.
Click to expand...
There is quite a bit more than "five years of information" on the subject.


Scalia has not been reticent in making anti-gay statements in the past. As with many of his decisions, Scalia's vaunted 'originalist' judicial philosophy is rather flexible, he will wipe out past decisions of the Court if he doesn't agree with them, all the while ranting on and on about the importance of precedence in determining what the Founders intended.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
Maybe we should investigate if conservatism is bad for children as well. I mean, think of the children right? Gimme a break.
Click to expand...
Maybe we should examine why a select group of knuckle heads have become so beholden to the church of political correctness that they now deem their own wisdom to be superior to that of the SCOTUS?
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Maybe we should examine why a select group of knuckle heads have become so beholden to the church of political correctness that they now deem their own wisdom to be superior to that of the SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

Don't even know where you're going with that one. Do you actually have examples that don't drown themselves in rhetoric?
 
TheNextEra said:
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.
Click to expand...
We can only judge by the results, and that takes time. Please note that I have not said what may not be good - only that we should focus on what is good for them comparatively and objectively. Given the relatively short time involved, I seriously doubt that a MAJORITY of anything can be determined yet. There are enough single sex couples raising children that we should be able to reach some conclusions eventually, but an assertion that it is thus or so is premature at this point. I suspect we're going to discover that rotten parents are rotten and good parents are good regardless of their sexual orientation - but that's just my suspicion.
 
TheNextEra said:
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.
Click to expand...
So if only 40 out of 100 kids are harmed it's acceptable? Wow. With the bar set that low we could probably set up foster homes in the federal penn.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
So if only 40 out of 100 kids are harmed it's acceptable? Wow. With the bar set that low we could probably set up foster homes in the federal penn.
Click to expand...

If 60% of children raised by these groups are fine, then yes, that dicates that just because they are liberal, conservative, gay or straight that isn't the reason children turn bad.

Care to show where even 40% of children are harmed by SSM and by what definition you are claiming "harmful"?
 
humbolt said:
We can only judge by the results, and that takes time. Please note that I have not said what may not be good - only that we should focus on what is good for them comparatively and objectively. Given the relatively short time involved, I seriously doubt that a MAJORITY of anything can be determined yet. There are enough single sex couples raising children that we should be able to reach some conclusions eventually, but an assertion that it is thus or so is premature at this point. I suspect we're going to discover that rotten parents are rotten and good parents are good regardless of their sexual orientation - but that's just my suspicion.
Click to expand...

Gay parents just didn't come about 5 years ago. There's plenty of children that have been raised successfully by gay parents. What I find interesting is that many gay people were raised by conservative parents. Think there's a connection between being gay and conservative parents? That's how ridiculous these things can become.
 
TheNextEra said:
Don't even know where you're going with that one. Do you actually have examples that don't drown themselves in rhetoric?
Click to expand...

You responded to me with rhetoric, remember?
Maybe we should investigate if conservatism is bad for children as well. I mean, think of the children right? Gimme a break.
Click to expand...

what do you expect?
 
Im willing to bet the adoption fight will be an entirely new SCOTUS fight down the line.

As for the current case my money is on punt. They will let states keep deciding and let it be.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
You responded to me with rhetoric, remember?


what do you expect?
Click to expand...


LOL my rhetoric was to your rhetoric about investigating whether gay parents are harmful to children.

then you responded with more rhetoric.
 
TheNextEra said:
Gay parents just didn't come about 5 years ago. There's plenty of children that have been raised successfully by gay parents. What I find interesting is that many gay people were raised by conservative parents. Think there's a connection between being gay and conservative parents? That's how ridiculous these things can become.
Click to expand...
It has been less than twenty years since gays in any number have been raising children. That's not a significant amount of time. I'm willing to err on the side of compassion, but a larger base of data would offer more conclusive information. I don't give a damn about SSM one way or the other. They're adults I assume. The children have no say in this, though, and we owe it to them to base some decisions on what will be best for them. Objectively.
 
Somerville said:
...
There is quite a bit more than "five years of information" on the subject.
Click to expand...

Well let's have it.


Scalia has not been reticent in making anti-gay statements in the past. As with many of his decisions, Scalia's vaunted 'originalist' judicial philosophy is rather flexible, he will wipe out past decisions of the Court if he doesn't agree with them, all the while ranting on and on about the importance of precedence in determining what the Founders intended.
Click to expand...

Scalia alluded to his own judicial philosophy in your link, whose actual headline was not the one you dreeamed up btw. So as long as you're changing headlines why didn't you change it to " My Constitution is a very flexible one," ... because Scalia actually SAID that.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm?
 
humbolt said:
It has been less than twenty years since gays in any number have been raising children.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry say that again? No, gays just haven't come out of the closet to the public less than 20 years ago. Gay parents have been reaising children for some time now. Hell, I have a grandmother who is gay and been with her partner for almost 60 years now. They raised 7 kids, all straight by the way successfully.

humbolt said:
That's not a significant amount of time. I'm willing to err on the side of compassion, but a larger base of data would offer more conclusive information. I don't give a damn about SSM one way or the other. They're adults I assume. The children have no say in this, though, and we owe it to them to base some decisions on what will be best for them. Objectively.
Click to expand...


So then you wouldn't object to studies on whether conservatism is harmful for children either right?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Im willing to bet the adoption fight will be an entirely new SCOTUS fight down the line.

As for the current case my money is on punt. They will let states keep deciding and let it be.
Click to expand...

... sounds right.
 
humbolt said:
We can only judge by the results, and that takes time. Please note that I have not said what may not be good - only that we should focus on what is good for them comparatively and objectively. Given the relatively short time involved, I seriously doubt that a MAJORITY of anything can be determined yet. There are enough single sex couples raising children that we should be able to reach some conclusions eventually, but an assertion that it is thus or so is premature at this point. I suspect we're going to discover that rotten parents are rotten and good parents are good regardless of their sexual orientation - but that's just my suspicion.
Click to expand...


What's a "relatively short time" when talking about the success or failure of parents? The ASA and APA have been looking at (researching/studying) same sex parenting for more than 50 years. There's lots of stuff in academia that contradicts what most folks 'know' but those same folks don't read about such things until they become political footballs.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
So if only 40 out of 100 kids are harmed it's acceptable? Wow. With the bar set that low we could probably set up foster homes in the federal penn.
Click to expand...
Ask those 40 children of opposite sex parents. *shrug*

I don't understand this argument. It's not about whether children will be screwed up by parenting, because parenting varies drastically all across the country. Heterosexual parents molest children, beat and otherwise abuse children, starve them, prohibit their education, etc. This happens everywhere. Will there be homosexual parents who treat children poorly? Most likely. But just as there are heterosexual parents everywhere who treat children with respect, love and care for them, feed them and be willing to do anything to better their life, there will be homosexual parents who will do the same.
 
TheNextEra said:
I'm sorry say that again? No, gays just haven't come out of the closet to the public less than 20 years ago. Gay parents have been reaising children for some time now. Hell, I have a grandmother who is gay and been with her partner for almost 60 years now. They raised 7 kids, all straight by the way successfully.




So then you wouldn't object to studies on whether conservatism is harmful for children either right?
Click to expand...
Study what you like. You're touting anecdotal evidence that is outside the mainstream. I don't care about that at all - it indicates nothing except a single incident. Your appreciation of the span of history is somewhat lacking.
 
humbolt said:
Study what you like. You're touting anecdotal evidence that is outside the mainstream. I don't care about that at all - it indicates nothing except a single incident. Your appreciation of the span of history is somewhat lacking.
Click to expand...

It's not just my views, it's others I have seen and read as well. The evidence is there and it doesn't point to parenting being bad just because of gay parents. There are bad parents, whether gay or straight. But hey, continue feigning ignornace on the subject, I don't care. It's clear that the right isn't interested in the "children" they are interested in keeping marriage between a man and a woman. Nothing more.
 
I've noticed that the summaries of whatever research on same sex raised children is full of weasel words.
You really have to be careful not to accept "findings" without questioning if the researchers had set out with a pre-determined goal.
And likewise, given the overwhelmingly larger number of traditional families relative to same sex families, the sample study group needs to be either much larger or the study needs to be much longer.
I suspect that was the point of the Justices.
 
humbolt said:
Study what you like. You're touting anecdotal evidence that is outside the mainstream. I don't care about that at all - it indicates nothing except a single incident. Your appreciation of the span of history is somewhat lacking.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing.
 
Somerville said:
What's a "relatively short time" when talking about the success or failure of parents? The ASA and APA have been looking at (researching/studying) same sex parenting for more than 50 years. There's lots of stuff in academia that contradicts what most folks 'know' but those same folks don't read about such things until they become political footballs.
Click to expand...
Well, let's see. We have about 6,000 years of history on the one hand, and what you claim is 50 years on the other. I'll go with the 6,000 for starters, and defer to the well-being of the children before I make a decision on the parenting of same sex parents. There is a lot of stuff in academia - some of it's great, and some of it is useless.
 
bubbabgone said:
I've noticed that the summaries of whatever research on same sex raised children is full of weasel words.
You really have to be careful not to accept "findings" without questioning if the researchers had set out with a pre-determined goal.
And likewise, given the overwhelmingly larger number of traditional families relative to same sex families, the sample study group needs to be either much larger or the study needs to be much longer.
I suspect that was the point of the Justices.
Click to expand...

First of all it is NOT illegal for a lesbian to get artificially inseminated and rasie a child with her partner. So why is the right even mentioning children, since marriage is NOT a requirement for raising children?
 
humbolt said:
Well, let's see. We have about 6,000 years of history on the one hand, and what you claim is 50 years on the other. I'll go with the 6,000 for starters, and defer to the well-being of the children before I make a decision on the parenting of same sex parents. There is a lot of stuff in academia - some of it's great, and some of it is useless.
Click to expand...

Is it illegal for Same-sex parents to raise a child? No. So what does SSM being legalized have anything to do with rasiing children?
 
bubbabgone said:
Scalia alluded to his own judicial philosophy in your link, whose actual headline was not the one you dreeamed up btw. So as long as you're changing headlines why didn't you change it to " My Constitution is a very flexible one," ... because Scalia actually SAID that.

Hmmmmm?
Click to expand...


Hey bubba - you screwed up the quote when you put your words into my quote box. I corrected it for you



Yep, just another example of Scalia's 'flexibility' or as some might say - His ability to change his "judicial philosophy" depending upon the audience

from 2010
Scalia Defends Originalism as Best Methodology for Judging Law
“My burden is not to show that originalism is perfect, but that it beats the other alternatives, and that, believe me, is not difficult,” Scalia said.
Click to expand...

2011
Justice Scalia's 'Originalist' Hypocrisy
“In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation,” Scalia said in a recent interview with the legal magazine California Lawyer.

“So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both? Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that.”
<snip>
In other words, Scalia and other right-wing justices operate with a situational ethic when it comes to “originalism” and “strict construction.” If their partisan and ideological interests require the abandoning of those precepts, the principles are dumped overboard.
Click to expand...

2012
Scalia’s Political Originalism - Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money
While we’re talking about the 14th Amendment, you’d think that a “textualist,” when asserting-without-serious-argument that the 14th Amendment could not possibly apply to gender classifications, would at least note that the 15th Amendment specifically mentions racial classifications and the equal protection clause of the 14th doesn’t, which creates a strong presumption that the 14th Amendment should not be held to apply exclusively to racial classifications. But since textualism would conflict with his strongly held political preferences, he’s never even addressed this.
Click to expand...

A review of Scalia's book, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts A book in which Scalia has attempted to justify his simultaneous defence of originalism and flexibility in making his decisions.

Present day academic discussion about Scalia and his originalism
Scalia
http://carneades.pomona.edu/2013-Law/0304-hdo.pdf
Scalia’s Originalism
 
bubbabgone said:
I was thinking the same thing.
Click to expand...
Yeah. We're talking about an entire nation here. Norway was the first country to recognize SSM, and that happened in 2003. So on a national scale, we're really talking about 10 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom