• 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

bubbabgone said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hey well if we're going to use your logic, you claim SSM could harm children, so since most gays come from heterosexual marriage we should really reconsider allowing heterosexuals to marry right?
 
TheNextEra said:
Being gay and being in a gay relationship IS NOT illegal though and so disallowing gay marriage is wrong. Get the point now?
Click to expand...
Gay marriage is disallowed by law (in places) and is being challenged on a civil rights basis.
Incest marriages are disallowed and could be challenged on the same basis if marriage was declared a civil right.
THAT's the point.
 
Samhain said:
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.
Click to expand...

I see nothing from the majority of anti-prop 8 litigants that talks about UNRESTRICTED. Care to show us where it says that?
 
TheNextEra said:
Hey well if we're going to use your logic, you claim SSM could harm children, so since most gays come from heterosexual marriage we should really reconsider allowing heterosexuals to marry right?
Click to expand...

Much less have children. They might have a gay one yanno;)
 
TheNextEra said:
I see nothing from the majority of anti-prop 8 litigants that talks about UNRESTRICTED. Care to show us where it says that?
Click to expand...

SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you’re being asked — and — and it is one that I’m interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to — that could get married — the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age — I can — I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on — on protecting a child until they’re of age to marry, but what’s left?
 
bubbabgone said:
Gay marriage is disallowed by law (in places) and is being challenged on a civil rights basis.
Incest marriages are disallowed and could be challenged on the same basis if marriage was declared a civil right.
THAT's the point.
Click to expand...

INCESTIAL relationships are illegal, so it would be logical to state INCESTIAL marriages should be illegal.

Gay Relationships are NOT illegal, so it would be logical to state SSM marriage should NOT be illegal.
 
Samhain said:
SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you’re being asked — and — and it is one that I’m interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to — that could get married — the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age — I can — I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on — on protecting a child until they’re of age to marry, but what’s left?
Click to expand...

That's SOTOMAYOR asking the question, NOT litigants of anti-prop 8.
 
TheNextEra said:
I see nothing from the majority of anti-prop 8 litigants that talks about UNRESTRICTED. Care to show us where it says that?
Click to expand...
They say it's a civil right so need a damn good reason to restrict it. That's now it works.
 
bubbabgone said:
You could give it a shot.
Click to expand...

Would you and the majority of the right be behind such a measure? No. That's because your statements are pretty hypocritical.
 
bubbabgone said:
They say it's a civil right so need a damn good reason to restrict it. That's now it works.
Click to expand...

The right to bear arms is a right, is it unrestricted? No. Is the first amednment unrestricted? No. What makes you think a civil right cannot be restricted?
 
TheNextEra said:
INCESTIAL relationships are illegal, so it would be logical to state INCESTIAL marriages should be illegal.

Gay Relationships are NOT illegal, so it would be logical to state SSM marriage should NOT be illegal.
Click to expand...

You need to read Sonia again in #123. This time think about what she's asking.
 
TheNextEra said:
The right to bear arms is a right, is it unrestricted? No. Is the first amednment unrestricted? No. What makes you think a civil right cannot be restricted?
Click to expand...
Exactly right. Exactly. Prop 8 did just that.
 
bubbabgone said:
Exactly right. Exactly. Prop 8 did just that.
Click to expand...

Yes, it did so wrongly by restricted a LEGAL relationship from getting married. Hence why it is a violation.
 
bubbabgone said:
Exactly right. Exactly. Prop 8 did just that.
Click to expand...

No, the other restrictions apply to EVERYBODY.

Anti-SSM laws apply to only one class of people, making them discriminitory by definition.
 
TheNextEra said:
Hey well if we're going to use your logic, you claim SSM could harm children, so since most gays come from heterosexual marriage we should really reconsider allowing heterosexuals to marry right?
Click to expand...

That's whatcha call reductio ad absurdum.
 
TheNextEra said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you choose the speech suppression of Political Correctness over truth, you will have to accept that there will always be suspicion of you.

That's what all the rage and anger on this thread is about, Justice Scalia violated your protective cloak of Political Correctness.
 
Last edited:
What if...? said:
No, the other restrictions apply to EVERYBODY.

Anti-SSM laws apply to only one class of people, making them discriminitory by definition.
Click to expand...
And I refer you to #123 also.
 
Ray410 said:
If you choose the speech suppression of Political Correctness over truth, you will have to accept that there will always be suspicion of you.
Click to expand...

Shhhhh, don't look, there's a gay person behind you. Better get out of your house quick or you'll catch the gay disease.

LOL I love righty paranoia and conspiracies. They are amusing to say the least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom