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

bubbabgone · Mar 27, 2013

Samhain said:
Bingo.

Yeah... I've been trying to make that point on another thread for days now. But I must admit, ol' Sonia has a tad more gravitas than I do. Especially being a big Lefty.

Somerville · Mar 27, 2013

bubbabgone said:
But in some places gay marriage IS not allowed and that's being challenged ... get the point now?

NO, I don't get the point. There is a great deal of scientific knowledge showing the potential for genetic harm to any children born of an incestuous relationship. Now if a brother and a sister want to marry and she is of child bearing age, then I think the two partners should be sterilised, you know -- just to prevent any weird mutants from being born.

also - the definition of incest has varied over the years, with marriages of first cousins being relatively common amongst European aristocracy. Such marriages resulted in such genetic defects as hemophilia in the relatives of Queen Victoria and her cousins, the Romanovs of Russia and Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany

for more on just how interconnected the noble, politically important and royal families of Europe came to be by the start of the 20th Century, European Family Trees

Somerville · Mar 27, 2013

Those against same sex marriage think they have a winner in the question posed by Justice Sotomayor: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist?

simple answer: those conditions that pose a threat to future generations would prevent marriage.

Hey bubba - do you love a goat well enough to marry one? Tell us, how do you gain the "informed consent" of an animal?

bubbabgone · Mar 27, 2013

Somerville said:
NO, I don't get the point. There is a great deal of scientific knowledge showing the potential for genetic harm to any children born of an incestuous relationship. Now if a brother and a sister want to marry and she is of child bearing age, then I think the two partners should be sterilised, you know -- just to prevent any weird mutants from being born.

also - the definition of incest has varied over the years, with marriages of first cousins being relatively common amongst European aristocracy. Such marriages resulted in such genetic defects as hemophilia in the relatives of Queen Victoria and her cousins, the Romanovs of Russia and Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany

for more on just how interconnected the noble, politically important and royal families of Europe came to be by the start of the 20th Century, European Family Trees

You're obfuscating the point ... see comment #123

Samhain · Mar 27, 2013

Somerville said:
Those against same sex marriage think they have a winner in the question posed by Justice Sotomayor: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist?

simple answer: those that pose a threat to future generations.

Hey bubba - do you love a goat well enough to marry one? Tell us, how do you gain the "informed consent" of an animal?

So then there should be no incest laws covering gay marriages, right? Or people that are barren?

bubbabgone · Mar 27, 2013

Somerville said:
Those against same sex marriage think they have a winner in the question posed by Justice Sotomayor: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist?

simple answer: those that pose a threat to future generations.

Click to expand...

Hey bubba - do you love a goat well enough to marry one? Tell us, how do you gain the "informed consent" of an animal?

...so how does father/son marriage pose a threat to future generations? Or mother/daughter? Brother/brother? Or even mother/son where the mother is past child-bearing age? Hmmmm? Would you like to tell all your friends & family that you support incest marriages. That would make for an interesting Easter dinner.

Somerville · Mar 27, 2013

bubbabgone said:
So do YOU consider yourself an original intent guy? Or do you just hate Scalia?

My study of history and legal precedents show that the writers of the Constitution understood the need for constant change in such a document as society changed. Jefferson, who didn't author the Constitution but did provide critiques, felt it should be changed every 19 years.

It is interesting in today's world, that the most controversial amendment, the Second, has a prefatory phrase which Scalia dismisses as inconsequential.

Do I hate Scalia, NO. I'm of the opinion that hatred can only come about thru personal interaction. I can certainly dislike his hypocrisy and his basic smart ass behaviour but no, I don't "hate" the Justice.

bubbabgone · Mar 27, 2013

Samhain said:
So then there should be no incest laws covering gay marriages, right? Or people that are barren?

Hey Saim, they stepped in it and can't get out. I can just imagine them thinking how it all seemed so simple before anyone asked questions. At least I HOPE they're thinking.

Dragonfly · Mar 27, 2013

One thing we KNOW for certain...opposite-sex parents can be, and far too often are harmful to children.

So what's the merit of the question?

Somerville · Mar 27, 2013

bubbabgone said:
...so how does father/son marriage pose a threat to future generations? Or mother/daughter? Brother/brother? Or even mother/son where the mother is past child-bearing age? Hmmmm? Would you like to tell all your friends & family that you support incest marriages. That would make for an interesting Easter dinner.

In my rather extended family, it would definitely provoke discussions. In fact, our family doesn't have arguments - we have "interesting discussions" which upon occasion have led to long periods of non-communication before agreement on some new matter brings opposites back together.

bubbabgone · Mar 27, 2013

Dragonfly said:
One thing we KNOW for certain...opposite-sex parents can be, and far too often are harmful to children.

So what's the merit of the question?

Ask Kennedy.

bubbabgone · Mar 27, 2013

Somerville said:
In my rather extended family, it would definitely provoke discussions. In fact, our family doesn't have arguments - we have "interesting discussions" which upon occasion have led to long periods of non-communication before agreement on some new matter brings opposites back together.

Think mom would tell dad to never to leave her alone with you again?

Ontologuy · Mar 27, 2013

OpportunityCost said:
Im willing to bet the adoption fight will be an entirely new SCOTUS fight down the line.

Yes .. and for good reason.

Straight kids raised by SS parents will have major problems in their later adult romantic relationship caused by damagingly inappropriate parental role-modeling of romantic relationship that is unconsciously inculcated in the kids and surfaces in the kids' adult relationships, and to a misery-causing effect.

It's one of the long-known obvious repercussions of, in effect, "bad" (inappropriate) parental role-modeling, in this instance, romantically.

I mean, an OS boy raised by two dads will unconsiously inculcate the romantic association of the comparatively excess physicality of his two dads, and will be in for a rejection shock when he is naturally unconsciously compelled and tries the same with his girlfriend.

Knowing what we know today, indiscriminately allowing adoptions to SS couples is tantamount to sanctioning what amounts to a form of child abuse.

SS couples should be allowed to adopt only[/] when the adoptee's sex is the same as the SS couple and the adoptee is gay.

If that's not known, then there's a 98% chance, equal to the percentage of non-gay people, that the adoptee will be seriously damaged in that environment as I just described.

OpportunityCost said:

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

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure.

There is a definite liberal ideological majority on the court, and that pre-conceived ideology will override intelligent common sense, I'm afraid.

I do, however, hope you are right .. though I would greatly prefer the better result of supporting Prop 8 and DOMA with an advocation of the creation of a civil union domestic partnership in all states that's for SS couples called homarriage, complete with complete recognition of the partnership by government and private enterprise.

Everyone wins.

Dragonfly · Mar 27, 2013

Ontologuy said:
Yes .. and for good reason.

Straight kids raised by SS parents will have major problems in their later adult romantic relationship caused by damagingly inappropriate parental role-modeling of romantic relationship that is unconsciously inculcated in the kids and surfaces in the kids' adult relationships, and to a misery-causing effect.ns.

That's complete and utter nonsense.

Please back that up with fact from some reliable source.

TheNextEra · Mar 27, 2013

bubbabgone said:
So you don't think incest marriages could possibly be considered a civil right ?

It might be, but that isn't the issue at hand. We don't make laws going, "Hmmm, maybe we should think about making conservatism illegal, because it could lead to fascism".

If we worried about slippery slopes for everything, we wouldn't be able to make breathing legal.

TheNextEra · Mar 27, 2013

Samhain said:
But why is incest illegal? Should gay marriage also have anti-incest rules?

Not sure what your saying here. If SSM were legalized, incestial relationships would STILL be illegal.

Incest in it's illegality is documented. I'm not going to argue the whys of incestial marriage. The issue at hand is a LEGAL relationship requesting marriage.

winston53660 · Mar 27, 2013

Ontologuy said:
Yes .. and for good reason.

Straight kids raised by SS parents will have major problems in their later adult romantic relationship caused by damagingly inappropriate parental role-modeling of romantic relationship that is unconsciously inculcated in the kids and surfaces in the kids' adult relationships, and to a misery-causing effect.

It's one of the long-known obvious repercussions of, in effect, "bad" (inappropriate) parental role-modeling, in this instance, romantically.

I mean, an OS boy raised by two dads will unconsiously inculcate the romantic association of the comparatively excess physicality of his two dads, and will be in for a rejection shock when he is naturally unconsciously compelled and tries the same with his girlfriend.

Knowing what we know today, indiscriminately allowing adoptions to SS couples is tantamount to sanctioning what amounts to a form of child abuse.

SS couples should be allowed to adopt only[/] when the adoptee's sex is the same as the SS couple and the adoptee is gay.

If that's not known, then there's a 98% chance, equal to the percentage of non-gay people, that the adoptee will be seriously damaged in that environment as I just described.

I'm not so sure.

There is a definite liberal ideological majority on the court, and that pre-conceived ideology will override intelligent common sense, I'm afraid.

I do, however, hope you are right .. though I would greatly prefer the better result of supporting Prop 8 and DOMA with an advocation of the creation of a civil union domestic partnership in all states that's for SS couples called homarriage, complete with complete recognition of the partnership by government and private enterprise.

Everyone wins.

Is there any corroborating evidence of your accusations that you can link to?

Ontologuy · Mar 27, 2013

Slyfox696 said:
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.

These factors are likely equal on both sides, so they need to be factored out.

That leaves us with the damage caused by inappropriate parental role-modeling of romantic relationship, that's unconsciously inculcated in their kids.

In that major, significant regard, SS couples can really damage a straight kids' later-adult romantic relationships, just as OS couples can do the same for gay kids.

But the birth defect of transgender and homosexuality is only 2%.

Obviously the odds are super high that an adopting SS couple will end up inflicting unintended significant damage in this regard on their kid.

Whereas an OS couple has much, much less of a chance of doing that.

There is good reason that since before the agrarian revolution marriage has always been between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

It's not just because of natural procreation.

It's also because it is the normal less-damaging relationship for kids, too.

Please see my immediately preceding post above for more information.

TheNextEra · Mar 27, 2013

bubbabgone said:
But in some places gay marriage IS not allowed and that's being challenged ... get the point now?

Being gay and being in a gay relationship IS NOT illegal though and so disallowing gay marriage is wrong. Get the point now?

Samhain · Mar 27, 2013

TheNextEra said:
It might be, but that isn't the issue at hand. We don't make laws going, "Hmmm, maybe we should think about making conservatism illegal, because it could lead to fascism".

If we worried about slippery slopes for everything, we wouldn't be able to make breathing legal.

Except that is the argument used by the anti-prop 8 litigants: Marriage is an unrestricted fundamental right. If that is true, then a State cannot have any laws regulating marriage, which means number of participants, sexes, ages, relationship, etc.

Ray410 · Mar 27, 2013

Among the general public, there is even less trust of homosexual research than there is of global warming research. The reason for that mistrust is because if a valid researcher were to publish anything negative about homosexuality, his career would be ruined and he would be publicly disgraced and called a homophobe, bigot, caveman, etc., etc. For proponents of gay marriage to cite their research is meaningless, the general public knows it is flawed before it begins. It's like researchers who conclude blacks are not as intelligent as whites. Their lives are immediately over, truth be damned.

TheNextEra · Mar 27, 2013

Jack Fabulous said:
Please.

Democrats have made "poor starving children" the centerpiece of just about every campaign they've run for the past 50 years.:lol:

Just keeping it real...

So on one hand you are complaining about Dems doing it, but then you want to do the same thing? Yeah really keeping it real, real hypocriitcal.

Nothing you said debunks or refutes what I said in your quote. Is that REALLY the best you have? If so, you've lost.

TheNextEra · Mar 27, 2013

Ray410 said:
Among the general public, there is even less trust of homosexual research than there is of global warming research. The reason for that mistrust is because if a valid researcher were to publish anything negative about homosexuality, his career would be ruined and he would be publicly disgraced and called a homophobe, bigot, caveman, etc., etc. For proponents of gay marriage to cite their research is meaningless, the general public knows it is flawed before it begins. It's like researchers who conclude blacks are not as intelligent as whites. Their lives are immediately over, truth be damned.

This comment belongs in the conspiracy forum. That's the best you got? Can't talk bad about gay people? You've lost as well.

bubbabgone · Mar 27, 2013

TheNextEra said:
It might be, but that isn't the issue at hand. We don't make laws going, "Hmmm, maybe we should think about making conservatism illegal, because it could lead to fascism".

If we worried about slippery slopes for everything, we wouldn't be able to make breathing legal.

The SC makes decisions accepting or rejecting a challenge based on implications of the arguments posed to them. You saw in #123 that even Sotomajor had concerns.

TheNextEra · Mar 27, 2013

Ontologuy said:
These factors are likely equal on both sides, so they need to be factored out.

That leaves us with the damage caused by inappropriate parental role-modeling of romantic relationship, that's unconsciously inculcated in their kids.

In that major, significant regard, SS couples can really damage a straight kids' later-adult romantic relationships, just as OS couples can do the same for gay kids.

But the birth defect of transgender and homosexuality is only 2%.

Obviously the odds are super high that an adopting SS couple will end up inflicting unintended significant damage in this regard on their kid.

Whereas an OS couple has much, much less of a chance of doing that.

There is good reason that since before the agrarian revolution marriage has always been between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

It's not just because of natural procreation.

It's also because it is the normal less-damaging relationship for kids, too.

Please see my immediately preceding post above for more information.

Well since the majority of gays are from heterosexual parents, I guess we should outlaw heterosexual marriage right?