• 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

Harshaw said:
So . . . you just made it up. OK.

If you didn't, show in the case where what you said is supported.
Click to expand...
Why?

Loving has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, there's nothing to be gained by either of us.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Source please. With a 50% divorce rate and a rising never-married coupling rate, I'm not inclined to believe that on it's face.

Most children in U.S. born out of wedlock | Mail Online

At a glance it would seem that most gays are the result of hetero never-married couple who quickly brake up (because that's where most children come from), not marriages. What gives you the impression that gays are more often born from stable marriages than never-married couples? Is there something about being married which makes a woman more likely to have a gay child? Give a link to that study also, please.

Also, how many heteros came from gay marriages?
Click to expand...

sorry Jerry ... calm down, take a deep breath ... what I should've said was that the vast majority of gays are raised by straight parents or a straight parent ...

as to your last question, my guess is that the majority of kids raised by gay couples are straight ...
:peace
 
Henrin said:
So where does it stay anything related to what I was talking about. Sorry, but I couldn't find it. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Just keep your nose in that bible, you are better off there...
 
Bori said:
what I should've said was that the vast majority of gays are raised by straight parents or a straight parent
Click to expand...
And is that supposed to prove something, or....?
 
Arbo said:
Just keep your nose in that bible, you are better off there...
Click to expand...

Your link has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, sorry.

Btw, I'm not religious.
 
Henrin said:
Your link has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, sorry.

Btw, I'm not religious.
Click to expand...

Will you publicly deny Jesus Christ as your Saviour ?.......................
 
Henrin said:
Your link has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, sorry.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you believe that. Your refusal to see it, is not my problem.
 
Arbo said:
I'm sure you believe that. Your refusal to see it, is not my problem.
Click to expand...

See what? You linked to something that doesn't even touch my point. Just admit you failed and walk away.
 
I have no doubt that the masculine-feminine balance of heterosexual parenthood is superior par excellence to that of homosexuals. However, with the sheer number of abandoned children left to the state, it is surely optimal for gays to adopt.
 
Bonzai said:
Then do it..............
Click to expand...

Wouldn't I have already sinned by even agreeing to do it?

Anyway...

I deny Jesus Christ as my savior.

Are you happy now? You're a bit weird with this stuff.
 
Henrin said:
See what? You linked to something that doesn't even touch my point. Just admit you failed and walk away.
Click to expand...

I can not admit to what is not the truth. You put forth a bogus suggestion, I address it in a more all encompassing manner. You still have put forth NOTHING to support your bogus, religious based nonsense. But now I know that 1) you are not a libertarian and 2) I wasted my time responding to you.
 
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...

You realize that this is irrelevant. It would be relevant if during those 6,000 years we had evidence that SSM couple did NOT do well raising kids... and only now is new evidence presenting the opposite. I can site evidence that shows that traditional families screw up kids. What does that prove? That some traditional families screw up kids. Show it be outlawed? No. There is plenty of research on single sex couples raising kids. Overwhelmingly, it's positive. The 6,000 year crap means zero.
 
Arbo said:
I can not admit to what is not the truth. You put forth a bogus suggestion, I address it in a more all encompassing manner. You still have put forth NOTHING to support your bogus, religious based nonsense. But now I know that 1) you are not a libertarian and 2) I wasted my time responding to you.
Click to expand...

What in the hell are you talking about? Your link was a failure that didn't touch my question and this has nothing to do with if I'm a libertarian. I'm sorry you can't read your own links, but no where in your link does it even address my point. Try harder next time.
 
bubbabgone said:
A SC decision that can lead to legalizing "non-traditional" pairings like incest marriages is more than a distraction.
But, hey, it does raise the question of whether there are any stats on children raised by incest parents.
Anything on that? Anecdotal or otherwise?
Click to expand...

Another stupid red herring. The issue is single sex couples raising children. You want to discuss children raised by incest parents? Good for you... but it has zero to do with this issue.
 
Henrin said:
What in the hell are you talking about? Your link was a failure that didn't touch my question and this has nothing to do with if I'm a libertarian. I'm sorry you can't read your own links, but no where in your link does it even address my point. Try harder next time.
Click to expand...

And you keep on keeping on without ever providing an ounce of support for the stupid claim you made.
 
Erod said:
Would it be harmful to a child if daddy had two wives? A wife and a husband? Three husbands? Perhaps a goat?

Liberals live in a strange reality.
Click to expand...

And ANOTHER stupid red herring. Want to discuss polygamy? Go ahead... but it has nothing to do with this particular issue.
 
bubbabgone said:
heh heh ... see comment #123. I'm enjoying this. Let's watch.
Click to expand...

And if I were Mr. Olsen, I would have responded exactly as I said to you. "Your honor, that's just a stupid red herring and has nothing to do with the discussion of SSM. If you want to discuss incest laws, I believe there are other places where it might apply".
 
Jerry said:
Why?

Loving has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, there's nothing to be gained by either of us.
Click to expand...

OK. You made it up.
 
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.
Click to expand...


Not at all. I already destroyed this stupid argument of yours months ago. It is invalid. Every time you post it I will remind you and the rest of DP that you are posting refuted information.
 
Henrin said:
Wouldn't I have already sinned by even agreeing to do it?

Anyway...

I deny Jesus Christ as my savior.

Are you happy now? You're a bit weird with this stuff.
Click to expand...



LOL...........I've always been curious about the real story of the first few centuries of this era..........The millions who denied Christ to save their lives during the persecution of the Christians.............
 
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.
Click to expand...

This information has already been proven invalid. No one need pay attention to it.
 
Ontologuy said:
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
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.
Click to expand...

More invalid information. The article you presented discusses two studies. The first is a meta-study and only questions the methodology of other studies saying that they have small sample sizes. It does NOT debunk the findings of any of those studies. The second study uses two sample sizes: 40 and 2. The first is small. The second is insignificant and irrelevant. With the 40, the second study does not indicate the variety of living arrangements that these children had.

So, once again, your information has been found to be invalid. At least you are consistent in this regard.
 
Ontologuy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Proven invalid. Point dismissed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom