• 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

CanadaJohn said:
sociologists are not in agreement about whether or not same sex parents is harmful to the upbringing of a child.
Click to expand...
Guy Incognito said:
This is a great example of why pseudoscience has no place in law-government.
Click to expand...
Are you saying you disagree that "whether or not same sex parents is harmful to the upbringing of a child" remains an open question and (therefore) an active area of research?
 
Taylor said:
Are you saying you disagree that "whether or not same sex parents is harmful to the upbringing of a child" remains an open question and (therefore) an active area of research?
Click to expand...

That is simply am saying it is irrelevant. Same sex couples have a right to equal protection under the law no matter what the research of some pseudo scientist says.
 
Taylor said:
Not as it pertains to state recognition of marriage (hence the court case).
Click to expand...
This is not debatable. You are simply wrong, as you will doubtless soon discover.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I would say that traditional marriage has, in the past, been defined as between opposite genders.

Now notice. You ask an honest question, you get an honest answer. I believe this is the first honest question you have asked me in this thread. Your LAST one was complete BS.

So, now that you have an answer, tell me what different the answer makes to the focus of this thread.
Click to expand...

Focus ??? On Threads ??? I know you're not new here, Cap, so I'm surprised you really would expect such a thing.

But anyway ... there WAS a point relative to the thread. Scalia wondered about the effect of gay marriage on the kids.
We have a ton of experience with the effect of traditional marriage on kids.

So I believe the point had something to do with redefining traditional marriage to satisfy a certain population demographic when, in truth, the demographic in question can enter into contracts with each other any time they want without redefining marriage for everyone else.
 
HOW does same sex marriage constitute "redefining marriage for everyone else"?


What harm ensues to opposite sex partners if same sex marriage is legalised across the country?


Just last month I attended a relative's marriage to his partner in Maine. Very nice, family occasion for the families of both men. For some reason or other, none of the hetero couples in attendance have decided to divorce and go for a same sex partner.
 
Taylor said:
Are you saying you disagree that "whether or not same sex parents is harmful to the upbringing of a child" remains an open question and (therefore) an active area of research?
Click to expand...

I didn't say any such thing - I don't know the answer - I was simply saying that Scalia was posing the question because in some people's minds it's an open question due to the limited experiential data available. Scalia didn't take a position one way or the other in his question and the title of the thread gives the impression he did.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I didn't say any such thing - I don't know the answer - I was simply saying that Scalia was posing the question because in some people's minds it's an open question due to the limited experiential data available. Scalia didn't take a position one way or the other in his question and the title of the thread gives the impression he did.
Click to expand...
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you did, he was responding to the text of yours that I quoted, and I was just trying to put his post into context since it wasn't obvious from the content alone.

I agree with how you framed Scalia's remark, and would even go further and say that any reasonable scientist should agree that it's an open question. If it were a settled issue it wouldn't currently be the subject of so much research.
 
Guy Incognito said:
And you'll see how wrong you are when the opinion comes out.
Click to expand...
Looks like you can't respond, but I'll just say that for all practical purposes no such right exists until the SCOTUS says so.
 
To me the questions needing an answer are as follows:

1. Does marriage between two consenting adults need to be sanctioned by the state?
2. If so, and there is a legitimate state interest in doing so, what are those interests, or interest?
3. Outside of matters like taxation, benefits, power of attorney, visitation rights etc that can be legislated for separately, does the state have any other compelling and necessary interest?
4. If the answer is no, then the state shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.
5. if yes, and the interests are solidified around the concept of procreation then the following needs to be answered.
6. Does marriage between a man and a women posses any inherent benefit to society over all others, including polygamous marriages, and homosexual marriages?
7. If so, what is this benefit, does this benefit carry with it such a compelling state interest that, the exclusion of all other marriage arrangements would be a necessary and proper function of the state to legislate.
8. Is there an intrinsic value for one type of marriage over any other?
9. Is there material proof, or evidence of any such claims?
10. Does the right not to participate in the procreative process invalidate this state interest?
11. Does the ability to manufacture a way to participate in the procreative process validate the marriage arrangement?
12. Does a marriage that produces children of the genetic components of each parent have any value over one that produces children of only one, or perhaps none of the parents?
13. Do the people through the state have a right and obligation to choose or favor one form of marriage over any other?
14. If the state has a fundamental duty, and by a necessary function, the right to regulate marriage types, does this duty, or function carry with it, a responsibility to exclude certain types of marriage, and if so, how does the state decide what types and whom is excluded?
15. If it is that the state does not carry this right and responsibility then gay marriage along with any other type of marriage should be allowed.
16. If it does carry this right and responsibility, then gay marriage and polygamous marriage should not be allowed to continue.

I disregard the gender sex question as it is argued for by the proponents of Prop 8. To me this is not an equal rights case, to me this is an social matter that depends greatly upon whether society as a function of itself has the right to regulate and legislate for its own posterity. As a matter of exceptional circumstances such as people marrying over the age of 50, or married couples that do not produce children, or divorced couples, and single parent households, is the virtue of a single defining criteria for marriage superior, (despite its apparent deficiencies in compartmentalizing the exceptions), to societies long term viability? Put another way, the intrinsic value of a marriage between a man and a women carries with it more value to society, and as such, should be held higher, above all others, and to the exclusion thereof, as the staple by which our society defines its family structure.


Tim-
 
Somerville said:
HOW does same sex marriage constitute "redefining marriage for everyone else"?.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. It's just another incoherent conservative meme pretending to be an argument.
 
Bronson said:
Marriage has never meant man + ? or woman + ?

If you truly believe otherwise, than yes, you are a radical extremist
Click to expand...

Marriage meant men had all the property rights in most states up until 1975 or so.

Is that the traditional marriage you're longing for?
 
Jack Hays said:
False.:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
Click to expand...

You got to love grammar nazis. They always get grammar wrong. I bet you have trouble with the subjunctive.

You probably also think "it's me" is bad grammar because the first person isn't in the nominative, even though no English speaker would ever say "it's I" -- only a person who learns English as a second language would say that (short of Posh British English). Similarly, spoken and informal English has dropped "whom" entirely Even in formal speech, best to avoid it. It sounds archaic.
 
head of joaquin said:
Marriage meant men had all the property rights in most states up until 1975 or so.

Is that the traditional marriage you're longing for?
Click to expand...

The definition of marriage has always meant man + woman

Not man + ? or woman + ?

Women weren't slaves. Your hyperbole is laughable.
 
head of joaquin said:
You got to love grammar nazis. They always get grammar wrong. I bet you have trouble with the subjunctive.

You probably also think "it's me" is bad grammar because the first person isn't in the nominative, even though no English speaker would ever say "it's I" -- only a person who learns English as a second language would say that (short of Posh British English). Similarly, spoken and informal English has dropped "whom" entirely Even in formal speech, best to avoid it. It sounds archaic.
Click to expand...

If the subjunctive were necessary for this exchange then I would use it. Perhaps your circle has dropped "whom" but civilization is still defended elsewhere.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
If the subjunctive were necessary for this exchange then I would use it. Perhaps your circle has dropped "whom" but civilization is still defended elsewhere.:cool:
Click to expand...

If I were you (and I'm not), I'd avoid using archaic forms. More to the point, I would follow usage and not grammar nazi scripts.

In any case, you're boring me.
 
Bronson said:
The definition of marriage has always meant man + woman

Not man + ? or woman + ?

Women weren't slaves. Your hyperbole is laughable.
Click to expand...

I take it you mean American jurisprudence, which also until a few decades ago, defined marriage to mean that men owned all the property.

Is that what you're longing for again?

I take it you're aware that in the Old Testament, polygamy was the norm. But I suspect you want to gloss over that.

That's the thing about Bible thumpers, they don't know what's inside the thing they're thumping.
 
head of joaquin said:
I bet say this to all the guys who have a more advanced degree in English than you.
Click to expand...

See that?
Such is the risk of commenting on someone's grammar.
tsk tsk
Now, what have you learned?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom