• 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

head of joaquin said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's impossible to take you seriously
 
bubbabgone said:
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.
Click to expand...

Back to this argument. We also have plenty of experience with the effects of SSM on children. As positive as those with traditional marriage. So, both Scalia's... and your question has been answered.

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.
Click to expand...

If two gays marry that marriage does not effect YOUR marriage in any way. If you think it does, prove it.
 
bubbabgone said:
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.
Click to expand...

true.

and there are some pretty poor examples around !
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Back to this argument.
We also have plenty of experience with the effects of SSM on children.
Click to expand...
As positive as those with traditional marriage. So, both Scalia's... and your question has been answered.



If two gays marry that marriage does not effect YOUR marriage in any way.
Click to expand...
If you think it does, prove it.
Click to expand...

No we don't have plenty of experience.

Tough to imagine how it affects MY marriage ... true.

But ... how about if there was a movement to interpret, say, the 2nd Amendment, in such a way that it really DID mean someone is free to possess bazookas & operational tanks or even just unlicensed handguns? Or that despite the 1st Amendment, someone really CAN shout FIRE in a crowded theatre.

Now ... those things may not affect you because no one knows where you live & you don't get out much, but would it be okay with you?

If you say it would affect you, prove it. Not with a manufactured what-if ... but rather with the same kind of proof you were asking of me.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
true.

and there are some pretty poor examples around !
Click to expand...

You bet.

So let's try this ... think about those examples ... think about the possible reasons they are poor examples ... now think about how many of those reasons would go away and/or how many more reasons would actually be added by having 2 gay parents.
 
bubbabgone said:
No we don't have plenty of experience.

But ... how about if there was a movement to interpret, say, the 2nd Amendment, in such a way that it really DID mean someone is free to possess bazookas & operational tanks or even just unlicensed handguns? Or that despite the 1st Amendment, someone really CAN shout FIRE in a crowded theatre.
Click to expand...
That's quite a handful of straws you grabbed.

Isn't that a rather faulty analogy you threw up there?
I mean,bazookas and operational tanks and even unlicensed handguns can be used to KILL people.
Shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater can cause a lot of injuries or even deaths.
When was the last time you heard of someone using a "marriage" to kill a bunch of little kids at some school?
When was the last time someone shouted "MARRIAGE" in a crowded theater and caused a massive panic stricken stampede toward the exits?
 
bubbabgone said:
You bet.

So let's try this ... think about those examples ... think about the possible reasons they are poor examples ... now think about how many of those reasons would go away and/or how many more reasons would actually be added by having 2 gay parents.
Click to expand...

You know,if you change the word "gay" to "interracial" it would still be a bullcrap argument.
 
Verthaine said:
That's quite a handful of straws you grabbed.

Isn't that a rather faulty analogy you threw up there?
I mean,bazookas and operational tanks and even unlicensed handguns can be used to KILL people.
Shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater can cause a lot of injuries or even deaths.
When was the last time you heard of someone using a "marriage" to kill a bunch of little kids at some school?
When was the last time someone shouted "MARRIAGE" in a crowded theater and caused a massive panic stricken stampede toward the exits
Click to expand...
?
Click to expand...

Whoooooaaaaa, now THAT might be interesting to explore.

But for now, let's stick to the 1st, 2nd, & 14th Amendments.
By your reasoning, it sounds like your threshold of concern for legality is if a life is in danger.
My threshold isn't quite as elevated.
 
Verthaine said:
You know,if you change the word "gay" to "interracial" it would still be a bullcrap argument.
Click to expand...

Is that the analogy you really want to go with?

Gay marriage : Traditional marriage :: Interracial marriage : Traditional marriage?

I think that might be offensive to some people.

Not me, of course. You may be just stirring the pot a bit.
 
bubbabgone said:
Is that the analogy you really want to go with?

Gay marriage : Traditional marriage :: Interracial marriage : Traditional marriage?

I think that might be offensive to some people.

Not me, of course. You may be just stirring the pot a bit.
Click to expand...
You mean like you've been doing?
 
bubbabgone said:
Is that the analogy you really want to go with?

Gay marriage : Traditional marriage :: Interracial marriage : Traditional marriage?

I think that might be offensive to some people.

Not me, of course. You may be just stirring the pot a bit.
Click to expand...

You are the ones who mixed bazookas and tanks with marriage.
You get to use bad analogies,but no one else is?
I know married people fight (I;m married also) but come on.
 
Verthaine said:
You are the ones who mixed bazookas and tanks with marriage.
You get to use bad analogies,but no one else is?
I know married people fight (I;m married also) but come on.
Click to expand...


I mixed bazookas and tanks with the 2nd Amendment. I'm covered.
But comparing race to homosexuality? That was your handiwork. And may I say tsk tsk.
And come to think of it, that's what gay marriage proponents are trying to do by using the Equal Protection clause to legitimize SSM.
Sounds pretty bad, doesn't it?
 
bubbabgone said:
You bet.

So let's try this ... think about those examples ... think about the possible reasons they are poor examples ... now think about how many of those reasons would go away and/or how many more reasons would actually be added by having 2 gay parents.
Click to expand...

The assumption here is that the purpose of marriage is to have children and be parents. There is little relation. You can be a parent without being married and you can be married without having children.
 
Verthaine said:
Then how do you compare the 2nd Amendment to gay marriage?
Click to expand...
Not me ... you're confused.
I don't believe gay marriage should be covered by the 14th Amendment.
So there's no Amendment analogy to be made.
 
head of joaquin said:
The assumption here is that the purpose of marriage is to have children and be parents. There is little relation. You can be a parent without being married and you can be married without having children.
Click to expand...

I just saw this today and thought I'd reproduce it for moments like this ...
Enjoy ...


HERE YOU GO. REASONS WHY PEOPLE OPPOSE THE REDEFINITION OF "MARRIAGE:"
Since you asked…

1.) “Marriage” is the name of a sacrament that would be desecrated by redefining it. Christians are upset because it is like redefining “communion” to be something that is in opposition to their faith.

2.) “Marriage” is a GENDER SPECIFIC version of a legal CIVIL CONTRACT. Gender specification is legal (e.g. gender-specific bathrooms, contract designations, maternity leave applications, college entrance forms, etc…). A civil contract should be extended to ALL people. However, by opening “marriage” and calling every union “marriage,” it opens the contract up to polygamists, incestuous relations, and anyone else.

3.) The redefinition of “marriage” has specific legal consequences on those who may have religious, moral or tradition views on the matter. They are FORCED (by default due to the law) to change their public moral position on the matter — even if the notion of gay “marriage” is in opposition to their faith or clear conscience.

4.) Homosexuals are not fighting for “rights” of the contract. They are fighting for the NAME — and redefining what the name means — because they know that this would have legal consequences in the future.

5.) The redefinition of “marriage” will have major implications for businesses or organizations that disagree with it. While churches will not be forced (at least now) to perform “marriages” for homosexuals, what happens with businesses, private citizens or other religious institutions or organizations? What would happen if a Christian bookstore hires a man who suddenly “comes out” a few months later and wants insurance to cover his “spouse?” A single definition will make it difficult (or nearly impossible) for a specific business to cater to the legal demands of others.

6.) Liberals have promised that churches and religious institutions will receive “conscientious objector” status for such things. However, they didn’t quite embrace that when it came to religious colleges dealing with abortion and contraceptive coverage requirements from Obamacare.

7.) The state pushing a redefinition of “marriage” results in the state taking a moral position on a controversial issue at the whims of that small fringe group — while demanding that people who derive morality from religion, faith, culture, tradition or any other reason remain silent.
 
bubbabgone said:
I just saw this today and thought I'd reproduce it for moments like this ...
Enjoy ...


HERE YOU GO. REASONS WHY PEOPLE OPPOSE THE REDEFINITION OF "MARRIAGE:"
Since you asked…

1.) “Marriage” is the name of a sacrament that would be desecrated by redefining it. Christians are upset because it is like redefining “communion” to be something that is in opposition to their faith.

2.) “Marriage” is a GENDER SPECIFIC version of a legal CIVIL CONTRACT. Gender specification is legal (e.g. gender-specific bathrooms, contract designations, maternity leave applications, college entrance forms, etc…). A civil contract should be extended to ALL people. However, by opening “marriage” and calling every union “marriage,” it opens the contract up to polygamists, incestuous relations, and anyone else.

3.) The redefinition of “marriage” has specific legal consequences on those who may have religious, moral or tradition views on the matter. They are FORCED (by default due to the law) to change their public moral position on the matter — even if the notion of gay “marriage” is in opposition to their faith or clear conscience.

4.) Homosexuals are not fighting for “rights” of the contract. They are fighting for the NAME — and redefining what the name means — because they know that this would have legal consequences in the future.

5.) The redefinition of “marriage” will have major implications for businesses or organizations that disagree with it. While churches will not be forced (at least now) to perform “marriages” for homosexuals, what happens with businesses, private citizens or other religious institutions or organizations? What would happen if a Christian bookstore hires a man who suddenly “comes out” a few months later and wants insurance to cover his “spouse?” A single definition will make it difficult (or nearly impossible) for a specific business to cater to the legal demands of others.

6.) Liberals have promised that churches and religious institutions will receive “conscientious objector” status for such things. However, they didn’t quite embrace that when it came to religious colleges dealing with abortion and contraceptive coverage requirements from Obamacare.

7.) The state pushing a redefinition of “marriage” results in the state taking a moral position on a controversial issue at the whims of that small fringe group — while demanding that people who derive morality from religion, faith, culture, tradition or any other reason remain silent.
Click to expand...

This is rightwing cant. Nobody is redefining marriage. Gays just want to get married, that's all.

I refer you again to history: marriage used to mean that men controlled all the property (up until the 1970s in this country). So is that the tradition you want to hark back to?

As I've noted before I'm for jettisoning the word "marriage" in civil law, and only having civil unions between consenting adults as the sole legal relationship for domestic partners. gay or straight. Then I'd give the word "marriage" to the churches and religions to do with what they want -- it just wouldn't have any force of law.

But short of that, seems to me gay people should be allowed to participate in the legal system we have on an equal footing with everybody else.
 
Last edited:
bubbabgone said:
You bet.

So let's try this ... think about those examples ... think about the possible reasons they are poor examples ... now think about how many of those reasons would go away and/or how many more reasons would actually be added by having 2 gay parents.
Click to expand...

since gays who become parents are generally more likely to be planning to have children ... the likelihood of these poor examples would be considerably reduced.

I guess you could argue for a licence to be a parent, which would apply equally to ALL, whether gay or straight (ie, all who wanted children would have to meet certain criteria proving that they were up to the job) .... but apart from the fact that such a proposition sounds pretty offensive to most people, it would be extremely difficult to police, especially among the hetero community.
 
head of joaquin said:
This is rightwing cant. Nobody is redefining marriage. Gays just want to get married, that's all.

I refer you again to history: marriage used to mean that men controlled all the property (up until the 1970s in this country). So is that the tradition you want to hark back to?

As I've noted before I'm for jettisoning the word "marriage" in civil law, and only having civil unions between consenting adults as the sole legal relationship for domestic partners. gay or straight. Then I'd give the word "marriage" to the churches and religions to do with what they want -- it just wouldn't have any force of law.

But short of that, seems to me gay people should be allowed to participate in the legal system we have on an equal footing with everybody else.
Click to expand...

I suspect the same types of people who were opposed to those changes would also been opposed to inter racial marriages:

Anti-miscegenation laws, also known as miscegenation laws, were laws that enforced racial segregation at the level of marriage and intimate relationships by criminalizing interracial marriage and sometimes also sex between members of different races. Such laws were first introduced in North America from the late seventeenth century onwards by several of the Thirteen Colonies, and subsequently by many US states and US territories and remained in force in many US states until 1967. After the Second World War, an increasing number of states repealed their anti-miscegenation laws. In 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, the remaining anti-miscegenation laws were held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Click to expand...

Anti-miscegenation laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and these would be the same people today who argue against gay marriage.

While getting rid of the world "marriage" in civil law may be an option, there are still many gays who want to get married in their own church. I understand that some churches might feel that they can argue against that, and hark back to the scriptures, but on some levels, discrimination can be deemed as unchristian as well.
 
Jack Hays said:
I agree. Why should heterosexuals be the only ones to suffer?:cool:
Click to expand...

Hey, that's actually a funny joke. A bit Rodney Dangerfieldesque, but not bad. I didn't think libertarians had the gene.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom