• 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

Top Cat

He's the most tip top
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
32,843
Reaction score
14,464
Location
Near Seattle
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
During Supreme Court arguments Tuesday on whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, Justice Antonin Scalia wondered if having parents of the same sex may be “harmful” to children.
Scalia jumped in to make his point when liberal justices were grilling Charles Cooper, the lawyer arguing in favor of Prop 8, California’s ban on gay marriage, about what harm it would cause opposite-sex couples.
“If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples,” he said, “you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there’s considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Some states do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.”
“I don’t think we know the answer to that,” he said. “Do you know the answer to that, whether it harms or helps the child? … That’s a possible deleterious effect, isn’t it?”

Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children | TPMDC


What an intolerant ****.
 
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.
 
Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

answer : no.
 
Voicing possible negative consequences that would result from a change in public policy is how court hearings work and is why we have a transparent and relatively reliable legal system. God bless Scalia for making sure that all sides of the issue are represented in the record for this case.
 
Justices routinely ask questions that may sound as if it involves their personal beliefs/leanings/political stance that really aren't. They gather all the arguments they can get their hands on and work from there. C-Span for a while there would televise quite a few of the 9th's hearings. I watched some of the most liberal justices (known to rule that way consistently) ask the most conservative sounding questions.

Not to mention justices seem to have a love for winding up whomever is talking at the moment.
 
What a piece of work Scalia is. He looks like Lou Costello on a drunk and thinks like him too, except he's not funny.
 
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.
 
To answer his question, no.
 
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.

Totally disingenuous. Adoption isn't a right. You can only adopt a child if you meet strict criteria relating to whether it's in the best interest of the child. That's determined on a case by case basis and involves lots of information gathering about the proposed adopted parents, as well as a judicial determination.

So his question was more conservatives hatemongering pretending to be an inquiry.
 
I'm not so sure that SSM, if legalized throughout the country, would necessarily take with it the anti gay adoption laws in place as well, as it seems it would be viewed as an entirely separate matter in the legal sense. In any case, the state shouldn't forbid or promote parental rights based on orientation strictly, as it prospectively eliminates a slew of loving, stable households from the equation. To be considered in the same light and capability prior to actual interaction is all that should expected, and demanded quite frankly.
 
Last edited:
Totally disingenuous. Adoption isn't a right. You can only adopt a child if you meet strict criteria relating to whether it's in the best interest of the child. That's determined on a case by case basis and involves lots of information gathering about the proposed adopted parents, as well as a judicial determination.

So his question was more conservatives hatemongering pretending to be an inquiry.

Not disingenuous at all - if you look past your nose, you'd see that if same sex couples have equal rights under the law to marry, then same sex couples would have equal rights to adopt since the nature of the marriage combination could not be used as a factor in the adoption process. I'm not suggesting for a minute that a same sex couple could not be denied an adoption, only that their marriage could not be a factor in that determination without being subjected to charges of discrimination.
 
LOL

a lot of times judges play devils advocate but i agree this one is silly simply because the answer is no, no and no.

BUT like i said, devils advocate is played often and it does serve an important purpose when done right, this one just obvioulsy wasnt done right lol
 
Not disingenuous at all - if you look past your nose, you'd see that if same sex couples have equal rights under the law to marry, then same sex couples would have equal rights to adopt since the nature of the marriage combination could not be used as a factor in the adoption process. I'm not suggesting for a minute that a same sex couple could not be denied an adoption, only that their marriage could not be a factor in that determination without being subjected to charges of discrimination.

Thanks for the nonsequitur.

I repeat, adoption isn't a right and is only granted by a judicial determination after rigorous information gathering about the proposed couple. Adoption has a process to place kids with parents that are in their best interest. You and Scalia are pretending there is no process and gay couples will be able to helter skelter adopt kids just for the hell of it.

So your comment above, and Scalia's is disingenuous.
 
Voicing possible negative consequences that would result from a change in public policy is how court hearings work and is why we have a transparent and relatively reliable legal system. God bless Scalia for making sure that all sides of the issue are represented in the record for this case.

The problem I see with Justice Scalia's comments is he seemed to be testifying not questioning the witness. I can see wanting to give all sides of the story, however who are these sociologists he doesn't identify? ( would Justice Scalia permit an unsupported claim made by a witness?) Are these sociologist the same people who claimed sodomy was detrimental to society so some states banned it, even among 'traditional' couples? Or maybe the offspring of sociologists who claimed interracial marriage was detrimental to society and therefor several states banned mixed race marriage?

Justice Scalia does seem to enjoy stirring the pot.
 
LOL

a lot of times judges play devils advocate but i agree this one is silly simply because the answer is no, no and no.

BUT like i said, devils advocate is played often and it does serve an important purpose when done right, this one just obvioulsy wasnt done right lol

Generally Scalia is too dull witted to play devil's advocate. That requires seeing a position from somebody else's perspective, a quality totally lacking in Scalia's cemented mind.
 
Thanks for the nonsequitur.

I repeat, adoption isn't a right and is only granted by a judicial determination after rigorous information gathering about the proposed couple. Adoption has a process to place kids with parents that are in their best interest. You and Scalia are pretending there is no process and gay couples will be able to helter skelter adopt kids just for the hell of it.

So your comment above, and Scalia's is disingenuous.

Your arguments are as pompously devoid of any value as usual - if you have a point, make it - your need to attack the integrity and views of others does nothing to assist anyone to consider your comments worth reading.
 
Voicing possible negative consequences that would result from a change in public policy is how court hearings work and is why we have a transparent and relatively reliable legal system. God bless Scalia for making sure that all sides of the issue are represented in the record for this case.

Since the process of adoption is judicial and involves substantial inquiry into what is in the child's best interest, his question was pure conservative culture war dreck.
 
Your arguments are as pompously devoid of any value as usual - if you have a point, make it - your need to attack the integrity and views of others does nothing to assist anyone to consider your comments worth reading.

Keep ignoring the point: adoption is a judicial determination made after substantial inquiry into what is in the child's best interest.

So claiming that some sociologists think gays make bad parents is irrelevant and an attempt to inflame the situation. Bad parents don't get to adopt kids, period, unless the procedure breaks down.
 
Keep ignoring the point: adoption is a judicial determination made after substantial inquiry into what is in the child's best interest.

So claiming that some sociologists think gays make bad parents is irrelevant and an attempt to inflame the situation. Bad parents don't get to adopt kids, period, unless the procedure breaks down.

...........:yawn:
 
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.

They should win 9 to 0 as there is no legal basis for a ruling against gay marriage and there is a very compelling Constitutional argument for it.
 
Generally Scalia is too dull witted to play devil's advocate. That requires seeing a position from somebody else's perspective, a quality totally lacking in Scalia's cemented mind.
Yeah man, Scalia could only dream of clearing the intellectual bar you've set here.
 
To the numerous right wing apologists on this thread...I admire your attempts at turd polish. What I appreciate most is that you really believe Scalia is something less than a homophobe right wing whack job. Thanks for the giggles.
 
Yeah man, Scalia could only dream of clearing the intellectual bar you've set here.

Quotes from our strange justice:

"The death penalty? Give me a break. It's easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state," Scalia said in October at the American Enterprise Institute, according to The Associated Press.


Read more: Crazy Quotes From Justice Antonin Scalia - Business Insider
 
They should win 9 to 0 as there is no legal basis for a ruling against gay marriage and there is a very compelling Constitutional argument for it.

I disagree. I have no issue with SSM but it is not a Constitutional issue---just a political one.
 
Back
Top Bottom