• 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

No baiting involved you claimed



Now can you back up your claim or not.
There's no backup required. It's reality. Homosexuals do not procreate. And I need not back up my claim. Or not. When all else fails, try a little common sense. The claim has been that homosexuals make good parents. I don't dispute that. I'm merely pointing out that historically they have not had much of an opportunity to demonstrate it, and thus lack a significant track record to validate the claim.
 
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.


You might wish to restate this post, as there were laws against other than 'Africans' being allowed to marry white folks.
Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

South Carolina, Texas and Virginia didn't allow any marriage between those of European and non-European origin until after the Loving decision

North Carolina and Tennessee said whites couldn't marry blacks or native Americans until Loving negated those laws.
 
There's no backup required. It's reality. Homosexuals do not procreate. And I need not back up my claim. Or not. When all else fails, try a little common sense. The claim has been that homosexuals make good parents. I don't dispute that. I'm merely pointing out that historically they have not had much of an opportunity to demonstrate it, and thus lack a significant track record to validate the claim.

Thats not what you claimed.
 
The argument of what is best for the children is lost on the left. Any group that has no problem killing babies certainly can not be expected to consider their best interests ahead of selfish interests. A child to a gay couple falls somewhere between a social experiment and one of those little dogs people carry around in a bag. It's just another way to say "Look at us! We're special!" The "parents" wouldn't have a clue as to how screwed up the child ends up viewed from their own perspective. In fact the the more extreme the deviation from the norm the larger the victory as any departure from the norm is considered progress regardless of direction.

You falsely assume all gays are Pro-choice. I know quite a few that are Pro-life. Yet more stupid rhetoric from a conservative that doesn't understand gays.

It's nice to see the homophobes come out of the woodwork on this issue though. And no, not all conservatives against SSM are homophobes, but in this case yes, you have shown you are one.
 
The argument of what is best for the children is lost on the right. Any group that has no problem allowing children to starve certainly can not be expected to consider their best interests ahead of selfish interests. A child to a hetero couple falls somewhere between a social requirement and one of those little dogs people carry around in a bag. It's just another way to say "Look at us! We're special!" Many parents don't have a clue as to how screwed up a child may end up as they are too involved with their own 'adult' problems. In fact the more extreme the deviation from the expected outcome for a hetero family, the more likely it is that their friends will deny the problems. The closer some families return to the standards of the 19th Century, the greater their victory as any departure from the norm is considered progress regardless of direction.


I changed a few words
 
The argument of what is best for the children is lost on the left. Any group that has no problem killing babies certainly can not be expected to consider their best interests ahead of selfish interests. A child to a gay couple falls somewhere between a social experiment and one of those little dogs people carry around in a bag. It's just another way to say "Look at us! We're special!" The "parents" wouldn't have a clue as to how screwed up the child ends up viewed from their own perspective. In fact the the more extreme the deviation from the norm the larger the victory as any departure from the norm is considered progress regardless of direction.

Perhaps the children of same sex marriage families would be better off if you didn't refer to them as an experiment. I don't see them as experiments or dogs, I see them as person(s) adopting children.
 
The argument of what is best for the children is lost on the left. Any group that has no problem killing babies certainly can not be expected to consider their best interests ahead of selfish interests. A child to a gay couple falls somewhere between a social experiment and one of those little dogs people carry around in a bag. It's just another way to say "Look at us! We're special!" The "parents" wouldn't have a clue as to how screwed up the child ends up viewed from their own perspective. In fact the the more extreme the deviation from the norm the larger the victory as any departure from the norm is considered progress regardless of direction.

An amazing amount of ignorance in the above post. First, your general paintbrush of those that do not have the bigoted view that kids raised by SS couples are a problem as 'on the left'. I am far from the left, and I realize through being a parent, knowing SS couples that have raised outstanding kids, and reading the real (and unbiased) studies, that there is no issue with kids being raised by SS couples. No more than kids that are raised by OS couples. Again, its insane views like expressed in the above post that is why 'the right' keeps losing elections and losing ground. This strange adherence to a book that is a work of fiction, rather than standing up for freedom and equality in this nation. Selective following of Constitution, when it fits their beliefs, makes the right and the left two peas in a pod.
 
Last edited:
The obvious truth that homosexuality is a birth defect?

BWHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

You have to love the inventiveness of homophobes.

Some of the most inventive I have found are those homophobes who advertise themselves as looking for sex slaves, and who wish to indulge in any manner of extreme sexual practices. They are known to project their unease over their own twisted sexuality upon others, and so try to portray gay people as having a birth defect so as to distract away from their own weird sexuality.
 
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
".

See that's where you're wrong. It does apply.
Answer this.
When the Equal Protection clause was established in the 14th Amendment, do you think it anticipated someday it would be used to sanction same-sex marriage?
No?
Yet here we are today, arguing about a possible successful use of that clause to do that very thing. And the legal precedent would be established.
Yet you think it can't possibly be used to apply to incest marriage. Well me and Sonia have recognized that it very well could.
 
Last edited:
I am neither a leftist or a 'gay'. But I understand the Constitution and it's intent. Yeah, they screwed up at first with equality, and it took a long time to correct those mistakes. Eventually they will all be fixed, regardless of the bible thumpers.

I know what I think the final decisions should be, but who knows which way they will go, if they decide anything at all.

You realize that most Court Watchers believe that it was the conservative side of the bench that called the Prop 8 case up in the first place with a presumed intent of slowing the tide toward gay rights don't you?
 
Now are the leftists and gays just so convinced they are going to win that they think they are going to win 9-0 as well. LOL.

What about all the conservatives and republicans that support marriage equality?
 
What about all the conservatives and republicans that support marriage equality?

They aren't on the SCOTUS. As I posted just above you, Court Watchers believe the conservative bench called up the Prop 8 case to try to slow the tide and apparently were frustrated in oral arguments that they cannot get an angle on the case one way or the other and may dismiss it as an "improvidently given" case.
 
You realize that most Court Watchers believe that it was the conservative side of the bench that called the Prop 8 case up in the first place with a presumed intent of slowing the tide toward gay rights don't you?

Which would support my claim that the right is doing themselves in.
 
Which would support my claim that the right is doing themselves in.

Nope. It undermines your apparent bent that gay rights are a Constitutional and not a political issue.
 
An amazing amount of ignorance in the above post. First, your general paintbrush of those that do not have the bigoted view that kids raised by SS couples are a problem as 'on the left'. I am far from the left, and I realize through being a parent, knowing SS couples that have raised outstanding kids, and reading the real (and unbiased) studies, that there is no issue with kids being raised by SS couples. No more than kids that are raised by OS couples. Again, its insane views like expressed in the above post that is why 'the right' keeps losing elections and losing ground. This strange adherence to a book that is a work of fiction, rather than standing up for freedom and equality in this nation. Selective following of Constitution, when it fits their beliefs, makes the right and the left two peas in a pod.

Actually the reason Republicans are losing elections is that the electorate is being overtaken by clueless young people who are much more interested in their immediate personal gratification than what is actually good for the country. Turn everything over to the government, surely their intentions are pure :roll: so you can spend more time on Facebook and pursuing whatever feels good today. I no longer have any interest in what these people have to say. As far as I'm concerned they will get what they deserve. I'm just out to make sure I don't get pulled down with them. "Change" is not always good even if it feels good today. But hey, you guys will figure that out. Find funding for a few more "unbiased" studies (oddly enough performed by those with an agenda and expected outcome), whatever makes you feel all intellectual and superior for now. When that falls apart for you, don't come knocking.
 
The argument of what is best for the children is lost on the left.

You can't make this **** up. Right wingers suggesting they actually give a flippin rip about children.

I will laughing all day about this one. Thank you!
 
You can't make this **** up. Right wingers suggesting they actually give a flippin rip about children.

I will laughing all day about this one. Thank you!

Of course you will. That's what you guys do when you have no argument. You resort to ridicule assuming that we care what you think and will avoid your pointing and laughing. Thing is we don't care about what you think. You are demonstratively wrong time after time. Conservative values have been beneficial to raising children for centuries. Assuming your way is better because it is different is a fallacy as evidenced by, well, you. Your parents were the result of a more liberal approach to child rearing which resulted in this generation. Case proven. Your parents ****ed you up and you can't see it. As luck would have it this stuff swings in cycles and it is correcting as we speak. All of your complaints about conservatives will soon be your issues, don't expect us to step in to help you pick up the pieces.
 
Of course you will. That's what you guys do when you have no argument. You resort to ridicule assuming that we care what you think and will avoid your pointing and laughing. .

Remind me again of the things republicans have doneto support kids instead of assuming you know anything at all about the way I was raised.

You really are a laugh a minute.
 
Remind me again of the things republicans have doneto support kids instead of assuming you know anything at all about the way I was raised.

You really are a laugh a minute.

There's the point and laugh part, right on cue. I don't have to have been there to see your upbringing, I can see the results in your posts. Your parents thought they were doing you a favor telling you you were just as good as everyone else. In real life there are winners and losers. Guess which one think there aren't? You're too soft to survive in the wild, and too ignorant to see it. Good luck, to those of us who have a clue you are ballast.
 
. In real life there are winners and losers. Guess which one think there aren't? You're too soft to survive in the wild, and too ignorant to see it.

Skip English classes did you? As a general rule, when you choose to question someone's intelligence, proper grammar is an excellent idea. Otherwise it backfires as it did above. Keep them coming Shecky.
 
Skip English classes did you? As a general rule, when you choose to question someone's intelligence, proper grammar is an excellent idea. Otherwise it backfires as it did above. Keep them coming Shecky.

Depends what you are writing. I'm filling time between tasks talking on a political forum with you. This is not exactly a venue that requires perfection. Very telling that grammar was what you focused on though. When I was in school we got grades in classes like English. Did you? Or was it one of those "we're all equal here" schools? BTW I'm not questioning your intelligence. Your lack thereof has already been determined when you started this thread by presuming your opinion on the outcome of children being raised by gay parents trumped a supreme court justice questioning it. They may be biased (in either direction) but one thing you will have a hard time pinning to a SCJ is ignorance. Just the fact that you do says volumes about you.
 
Depends what you are writing. I'm filling time between tasks talking on a political forum with you. This is not exactly a venue that requires perfection. Very telling that grammar was what you focused on though. When I was in school we got grades in classes like English. Did you? Or was it one of those "we're all equal here" schools? BTW I'm not questioning your intelligence. Your lack thereof has already been determined .

Of course you're not. Oh wait.

Originally Posted by tech30528

Guess which one think there aren't? You're too soft to survive in the wild, and too ignorant to see it.


Honestly, run along now. You have brought nothing.
 
Back
Top Bottom