• 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

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.
What? Politics in government? Say it aint so!
 
Here is just one of a many articles debunking previously activist-biased "studies" referencing true and accurate studies that present what we already intuitively know: that SS couples severely damage their adopted/inseminated kids compared to kids of OS couples:
New Research on Children of Same-Sex Parents Suggests Differences Matter | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation
According to NFSS, just 1.7 percent of young adults ages 18 to 39 reported having a parent who has had a same-sex romantic relationship. The experience of long-term stability in same-sex households is rarer still. Among those who reported having a mother who had a same-sex relationship, 91 percent said they lived with their mothers when they were in the relationship. Fifty-seven percent reported living with their mother and her partner for more than four months, and 23 percent for at least three years. Among young adults whose fathers had a same-sex relationship, 42 percent said they lived with them during the relationship; 24 percent said they lived with their fathers and fathers’ partners for more than four months; and less than 2 percent for at least three years.

Only two respondents whose mothers had a same-sex relationship reported that this living arrangement lasted all 18 years of their childhood. No respondents with fathers who had a same-sex relationship reported such longevity.

The NFSS surveyed young adult respondents about their own relationship history and quality, economic and employment status, health outcomes, abuse history, educational attainment, relationship with parents, psychological and emotional well-being, substance use, and sexual behaviors and outcomes.

Compared to young adults in traditional, intact families, young adults whose mothers had a same-sex relationship tended to fare worse than their peers in intact biological families on 24 of the 40 outcomes examined. For example, they were far more likely to report being sexually victimized, to be on welfare, or to be currently unemployed.

Young adults whose fathers had a same-sex relationship showed significant differences from their peers in intact families on 19 of the outcomes. For example, they were significantly more likely to have contemplated suicide, to have a sexually transmitted infection, or to have been forced to have sex against their will.
I know that pre-conceived ideologues compulsively clamor for "proof", which they will reject everytime it's presented.

But the rest of us intuitively know that the results of this study isn't a big shock; we know the obvious damage to kids in their adult life, especially in their romantic relationships, caused by being raised by an SS couple.

It's been known since before the agrarian revolution, which is why from the onset marriage has been between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Today, SS activists have for 50 years brainwashed generations with the oxymoronic phrase "gay marriage" until the masses are "comfortable" with the emotional feel of it.

However, when presented with the facts, as I have done throughout, it's clear there is no reason whatsoever to be comfortable with this kind of child abuse.

Ideologues will not be affected by the truth of it, as they are too far gone mentally.

But those still possessing the ability to think for themselves will understandably realize the truth that I present.
 
I don't understand why Scalia even mentioned this, it has nothing to do with the question at hand. It seems as if he's already arguing the next decision to be put before the court.
 
No, the other restrictions apply to EVERYBODY.

Anti-SSM laws apply to only one class of people, making them discriminitory by definition.
It's called 'same-sex' marriage, not 'gay'-marriage for a reason. I'm hetero, I cannot marry a man. I am under all the same restrictions as everyone else.
 
I don't think prop eight is going to survive its first challenge. The lawyers supporting prop eight did not exactly make a slam dunk of a argument.
I meant if prop 8 does NOT survive the challenge. What will the next challenge be using the same civil right argument. Which was mine and my new friend Sonia Sotomayor's question.
 
Well since the majority of gays are from heterosexual parents, I guess we should outlaw heterosexual marriage right?
Meaningless, obviously.

Homosexuality is a birth defect, nothing more, and since birth defects of all kinds can result from procreational behavior, we should just ban procreation, right?

Your absurdity deserved an in-kind response.
 
I don't think prop eight is going to survive its first challenge. The lawyers supporting prop eight did not exactly make a slam dunk of a argument.

Of course not, they really couldn't. Their only real claim is religious and, since we have a secular government, religious claims don't fly. So they have had to talk around religion and get the religious message across without mentioning religion. It turns a stupid argument into an utterly incomprehensible one.
 
Meaningless, obviously.

Homosexuality is a birth defect, nothing more, and since birth defects of all kinds can result from procreational behavior, we should just ban procreation, right?

Your absurdity deserved an in-kind response.
oh man are gonna get it now
 
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?
That's how I see this. If you have a violent history, you shouldn't be able to walk into wall-mart and buy a gun. If you yell 'fire' in a theater, you are harming people, and should do some time. So, unless your marriage creates a net harm to society, you should be allowed to do it. All else being equal I don't see how same-sex marriage is any more harmful than other marriages we already allow. To the same logic I don't see why pot should be illegal while alcohol and tobacco are legal. If the purpose is to reduce consumption of harmful drugs, then alcohol and tobacco are the first to go.

That being said, the 50% divorce rate is what is causing a net harm to society, and so that should be the focus of the 'family values' types, not the sexes of the people marrying.
 
Last edited:
Of course not, they really couldn't. Their only real claim is religious and, since we have a secular government, religious claims don't fly. So they have had to talk around religion and get the religious message across without mentioning religion. It turns a stupid argument into an utterly incomprehensible one.

All of which makes prop eight's continuing existence as likely as a snowballs chance in a furnace.
 
Meaningless, obviously.

Homosexuality is a birth defect, nothing more, and since birth defects of all kinds can result from procreational behavior, we should just ban procreation, right?

Your absurdity deserved an in-kind response.

The absurdity is calling being gay a birth defect. Much like your claim in being a centrist is absurd.
 
That's how I see this. If you have a violent history, you shouldn't be able to walk into wall-mart and buy a gun. If you yell 'fire' in a theater, you are harming people, and should do some time. So, unless your marriage creates a net harm to society, you should be allowed to do it. All else being equal I don't see how same-sex marriage is any more harmful than other marriages we already allow. To the same logic I don't see why pot should be illegal while alcohol and tobacco are legal.

Tobacco and alcohol are highly regulated industry's.
 
Of course not, they really couldn't. Their only real claim is religious and, since we have a secular government, religious claims don't fly. So they have had to talk around religion and get the religious message across without mentioning religion. It turns a stupid argument into an utterly incomprehensible one.

And the opponents are making a similar utterly incomprehensible argument as well: marriage is a civil right. Hence the questioning referenced, which indicates that the state cannot restrict said civil right in any way shape or form.
 
oh man are gonna get it now
"Now"???

Pre-conceived ideologues have been shoving it to me for the past few days now! :lol:

But I've presented accurately and with proof, so I just dismiss their Donald Duck fits and realize a word to the wise is sufficient. :cool:
 
oh man are gonna get it now
I don't see why; we don't ban any other marriage on the basis that one or both parties has any other birth defect.

Homosexuality can be a birth defect and ssm still be allowed.
 
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.
The quote from you that I responded to was rhetoric. I replied to your rhetoric with my own rhetoric. Who's the one being hypocritical here? At least I freely admit it.
 
The absurdity is calling being gay a birth defect.
False.

I've provided accurate presentation in other threads the past couple of days that validates the reality that transsexuality and homosexuality are birth defects caused by hormone-blast dysfunctions during gestation.

That pre-conceived ideologues have "trouble" accepting the truth of it is the only real absurdity .. though it's understandable, all compulsive mindset things considered regarding protection and retaining power.


Much like your claim in being a centrist is absurd.
Meaningless.

But I find it interesting that you fantasize centrists support the use of the OS couple term "marriage" by SS couples or that centrists somehow can't recognize the obvious damage that SS couples do to straight kids.

I often wonder how such misconceptions orient.
 
"Now"???

Pre-conceived ideologues have been shoving it to me for the past few days now! :lol:

But I've presented accurately and with proof, so I just dismiss their Donald Duck fits and realize a word to the wise is sufficient. :cool:
I could have used you over on the "Beyond Gay Marriage" thread. Man was I ever outnumbered. And then Sonia, of all people, bailed me out yesterday.
In truth, I think most of 'em just take the pro-SSM position to give themselves a warm fuzzy congratulatory feeling. Thinking just doesn't enter into it at all.
 
I don't see why; we don't ban any other marriage on the basis that one or both parties has any other birth defect.

Homosexuality can be a birth defect and ssm still be allowed.
...it was just a prediction and with the experience of over 30,000 posts I bet you were thinking the same thing.
 
All of which makes prop eight's continuing existence as likely as a snowballs chance in a furnace.

I don't think there's much of a chance that it won't be overturned, I just think the SC will wimp out and not make any decisions on the validity of same sex marriage, they'll just decide that Prop 8 won't stand. Nobody on the court has any balls, they're only concerned about looking good in the history books.
 
And the opponents are making a similar utterly incomprehensible argument as well: marriage is a civil right. Hence the questioning referenced, which indicates that the state cannot restrict said civil right in any way shape or form.

I don't give a crap if it's a right, it's discriminatory to give it to one group of people and not to another. That's the whole argument. If you can't get away allowing white people to marry, but not black people, you can't allow letting straight people marry but not gay people. The only basis the Prop 8 people have for claiming gays shouldn't marry is religion and religion cannot be used as an argument in a government court.
 
You should welcome the opportunity to prove your case, not become enraged that you are asked to do do.
 
Back
Top Bottom