• 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

Then, considering your signature, your obvious issues with religion, and your apparently erroneous association of religion with marriage, there's a lot about such projection you've learned by yourself ..

.. Hypothetically speaking, of course. :roll:

Clearly, though, you choose not to have a fact-based discussion on the matter, as your mindset is already made up, and your again not-so-veiled ad hominem tendency is really the best that you have.

My siggy is simply a line from an Elvis Costello song, and I have certainly said nothing about religion.

Its so sweet how you keep whining about these supposed ad-homs, though. Considering your recent vomits of hate speech against gay people, which of course includes several posters here, what you are receiving back pales in comparison.
 
My siggy is simply a line from an Elvis Costello song, and I have certainly said nothing about religion.
Not the signature to which I was referring -- I apologize if you didn't just delete the signature I thought I saw at the bottom of your post a moment ago.


Its so sweet how you keep whining about these supposed ad-homs, though. Considering your recent vomits of hate speech against gay people, which of course includes several posters here, what you are receiving back pales in comparison.
:roll:

Again with the false accusations and allusions sans detailed specifics about your topically relevant perspective.

Time to just let you fade into the background, since you're not interested in the slighted about presenting topically relevant perspective, but merely initiating bashing ad homs against those who disagree with you.
 
Where have I taken an anti-ssm position on this thread?

Saying that I'm under the same restrictions as everyone else is not a statement against ssm. It's just a fact.

Bearing in mind of course there was a time when you couldn't marry a black WOMAN, at least in some places.
 
Bearing in mind of course there was a time when you couldn't marry a black WOMAN, at least in some places.
Whites could marry other races,just not blacks specifically, and other races could marry without limit. The restriction shot down by Loving v. Virginia was specifically about blacks and whites. No other races. Whites could still marry Latinos if they wanted...just not blacks.

That's why that ban was struck down.

If the restriction were broad, requiring both parties to be of the same race in order to marry, regardless of the race, the law would likely have stood.
 
Whites could marry other races,just not blacks specifically, and other races could marry without limit. The restriction shot down by Loving v. Virginia was specifically about blacks and whites. No other races. Whites could still marry Latinos if they wanted...just not blacks.

That's why that ban was struck down.

If the restriction were broad, requiring both parties to be of the same race in order to marry, regardless of the race, the law would likely have stood.

I don't think so:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
 
Or, perhaps, putting the Supreme Court on a level higher than that of the Church of Political Correctness...

Nothing more than Scalia showing his spots. How he passed muster is beyond me. The guy is bat **** crazy.
 
Children are raised best by their biological parents in a low conflict household

Calling him a bigot was simply me acknowledging his only real talent. Do you have statistics to prove your assertion by the way?
 
Does anyone know why there is an increase in boys acting girly?

I'm not saying it is connected to this, but I'm not taking it out as a cause either.

Any answers to that?
 
Well its a fair question. And one I hope he gets a definite and indisputable answer to.

I'm sure the whack job right wing will come up with the definitive answer. And Scalia is just the man for the job.
 
And you know this how?

Looking around?? When I look at teenage boys today it seems like a great deal more of them are acting girly. I personally consider it a problem.
 
Are you disputing it?.

The very article you posted disputes it. (see below) Clearly you pulled your original contention out of your ass. How ironic.

“Whether same-sex parenting causes the observed differences cannot be determined from Regnerus’ descriptive analysis,” says Cynthia Osborne, associate professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. “Children of lesbian mothers might have lived in many different family structures, and it is impossible to isolate the effects of living with a lesbian mother from experiencing divorce, remarriage, or living with a single parent.
 
Looking around?? When I look at teenage boys today it seems like a great deal more of them are acting girly. I personally consider it a problem.

Gee there's a shock. Heaven forbid one of them should grow up to be a homosexual. What would you do? What would you do? Oh the horror!
 
Looking around?? When I look at teenage boys today it seems like a great deal more of them are acting girly. I personally consider it a problem.

My generation was softer than my parents'. We had fewer hardships, more resources and Dr Spock. The current generation of pre-arranged playdate kids will be their own breed of hothouse flower.

Then also, you have to remember, there is a higher percentage of single parent households these days and the parent is generally the Mom.
 
Gee there's a shock. Heaven forbid one of them should grow up to be a homosexual. What would you do? What would you do? Oh the horror!

Most of these boys I'm referring are straight. Boys should grow up to be men, not girly men.
 
Are you disputing it?
I won't know until I see your source material.

From your link:
The findings, to be published in the July issue of Social Science Research, are based on the first large-scale, population-based survey of young adults that features a large number of cases in which survey respondents’ parents had been in same-sex relationships.

Most conclusions about same-sex parenting have been drawn from small, convenience samples, not larger, random ones,” says study leader Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin.

No conclusions can be based off this source yet. Come back in July after the study has been completed and published.
 
Last edited:
My generation was softer than my parents'. We had fewer hardships, more resources and Dr Spock. The current generation of pre-arranged playdate kids will be their own breed of hothouse flower.

Then also, you have to remember, there is a higher percentage of single parent households these days and the parent is generally the Mom.

I just somehow doubt that being raised by a single mom or two women without a father figure in sight is good at raising men. Call me what you will for that, but I think the evidence is out there that shows I'm right.
 
The title of this thread is misleading considering the content of the quote posted with it.

Scalia was not doing the wondering - in fact, he appears to take no side in the argument - he simply states that if same sex marriage is allowed then same sex couples would have a right to adopt children and sociologists are not in agreement about whether or not same sex parents is harmful to the upbringing of a child. That's a fact that he wished to be put on the record. He didn't say he agreed with it, he simply put it forward as relevant.

Simply because you disagree with the ideological bent of those on the court you disagree with doesn't make those people evil or deserving of such disrespect.


Once again Scalia is full of crap ... How many decisions by Scalia will it take for people to realize that he has an agenda and rules principally on his religious and other believes? Look up activist judge and his picture appears next to it. In the first place, there is not that much disagreement at all among sociologists on this question. His comment was misleading at best. The evidence suggests that there is little, if any difference, in how well the kids turn out relative to kids raised by straight parents. A recent article that came out suggesting that kids raised by gay parents don't turn out as well, was deeply flawed (and funded by two conservative organizations) and has been taken to task by other social scientists. We still need more data, but what we have thus far suggests that the harm is no less and no more. Why don't we ask, "Are opposite-sex harmful to their kids?"
 
Back
Top Bottom