• 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

TheNextEra said:
First of all it is NOT illegal for a lesbian to get artificially inseminated and rasie a child with her partner. So why is the right even mentioning children, since marriage is NOT a requirement for raising children?
Click to expand...

So? Don't want to talk about kids? Then we can talk about that other thread exploring other kinds of marriages that may have to be allowed if marriage is declared a civil right.
 
Somerville said:
Hey bubba - you screwed up the quote when you put your words into my quote box. I corrected it for you



Yep, just another example of Scalia's 'flexibility' or as some might say - His ability to change his "judicial philosophy" depending upon the audience

from 2010


2011


2012


A review of Scalia's book, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts A book in which Scalia has attempted to justify his simultaneous defence of originalism and flexibility in making his decisions.

Present day academic discussion about Scalia and his originalism
Scalia
http://carneades.pomona.edu/2013-Law/0304-hdo.pdf
Scalia’s Originalism
Click to expand...

Not sure what your point is but you might have the wrong idea about what an "originalism" approach is.
If your point is that we should NOT interpret the Constitution the way the authors intended it then you DO have a disagreement with Scalia.
 
TheNextEra said:
Is it illegal for Same-sex parents to raise a child? No. So what does SSM being legalized have anything to do with rasiing children?
Click to expand...
Who said anything about legality with regard to children? I didn't. If you can't see any connection between marriage and children that's another problem entirely, and legality is not the issue. I legally own an AR15, so why anyone would want to discuss my right to legally own one after the fact is exactly the same kind of problem presented, and no one on the left seems the least bit dissuaded by that fact. You can make such arguments if you like, but you cannot have it both ways when it suits you.
 
bubbabgone said:
So? Don't want to talk about kids? Then we can talk about that other thread exploring other kinds of marriages that may have to be allowed if marriage is declared a civil right.
Click to expand...

So? It is a distraction and nothing more. The whole "think of the children" routine is a last desperate effort by the right since they know they are losing ground. The only thing they can do is distract.
 
humbolt said:
Who said anything about legality with regard to children? I didn't. If you can't see any connection between marriage and children that's another problem entirely, and legality is not the issue. I legally own an AR15, so why anyone would want to discuss my right to legally own one after the fact is exactly the same kind of problem presented, and no one on the left seems the least bit dissuaded by that fact. You can make such arguments if you like, but you cannot have it both ways when it suits you.
Click to expand...

Fact: Gay people can rasie children regardless of whether they are married or not.

So, this is nothing more than a distraction by the right since no matter what the outcome, gay people will STILL be able to raise children. Distractions are all the right have left on this issue.
 
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...

During those "6,000 years of history", not counting the past 50 years, were there actual studies conducted in regards to same-sex parenting. You do know that 50 years does cover infancy to adulthood for human beings, don't you? You do know that in California alone, as Justice Kennedy noted, there are some 40,000 children presently living with same-sex parents?

Somehow, for me, studies conducted on a single subject, Same Sex Parenting, provide better answers to the questions posed than attempting to extract personal data from "6,000 years of history" that wasn't focused on the subject. And I would venture to guess that your "6,000 years of history" are focused on Classical, Western European and American History and that the American History doesn't have much to say about First Nations actions toward gay and lesbian parents.


and that "useless" stuff in academia tends to shift according to societal constraints and prejudices
 
bubbabgone said:
So? Don't want to talk about kids? Then we can talk about that other thread exploring other kinds of marriages that may have to be allowed if marriage is declared a civil right.
Click to expand...

Still not clear on why what other people choose to do with their lives is any of your business as long as your rights aren't being violated.
 
Somerville said:
During those "6,000 years of history", not counting the past 50 years, were there actual studies conducted in regards to same-sex parenting. You do know that 50 years does cover infancy to adulthood for human beings, don't you? You do know that in California alone, as Justice Kennedy noted, there are some 40,000 children presently living with same-sex parents?

Somehow, for me, studies conducted on a single subject, Same Sex Parenting, provide better answers to the questions posed than attempting to extract personal data from "6,000 years of history" that wasn't focused on the subject. And I would venture to guess that your "6,000 years of history" are focused on Classical, Western European and American History and that the American History doesn't have much to say about First Nations actions toward gay and lesbian parents.


and that "useless" stuff in academia tends to shift according to societal constraints and prejudices
Click to expand...
Heh. As does all that useful stuff. Useless and useful depends on the intent of the user, not to mention the person producing the stuff. 50 years isn't squat. But I have to go. It'll all get sorted out. Have a good day.
 
bubbabgone said:
Not sure what your point is but you might have the wrong idea about what an "originalism" approach is.
If your point is that we should NOT interpret the Constitution the way the authors intended it then you DO have a disagreement with Scalia.
Click to expand...

You're "not sure" what my point might be? First you post a quote from Scalia in which he talks about his "flexible" views on the Constitution and now you think that my post showing how Scalia's words change according to his audience don't show that Scalia is not in the least interested in interpreting what the "authors intended" when they wrote the Constitution?? :roll:


As with many Justices thru out American history, Antonin Scalia almost always puts his personal political philosophy before actual "originalist" interpretation
 
TheNextEra said:
So? It is a distraction and nothing more. The whole "think of the children" routine is a last desperate effort by the right since they know they are losing ground. The only thing they can do is distract.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Somerville said:
You're "not sure" what my point might be? First you post a quote from Scalia in which he talks about his "flexible" views on the Constitution and now you think that my post showing how Scalia's words change according to his audience don't show that Scalia is not in the least interested in interpreting what the "authors intended" when they wrote the Constitution?? :roll:


As with many Justices thru out American history, Antonin Scalia almost always puts his personal political philosophy before actual "originalist" interpretation
Click to expand...

So do YOU consider yourself an original intent guy? Or do you just hate Scalia?
 
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...

Wow, you are so out in far right field, it's amazing.

Incest is illegal, Being in a gay relationship is not.

We are not arguing incest marriage, we are arguing gay marriage. Being gay is legal, Being gay and raising children is legal, gay marriage should then be legal.

When incest is made legal, than we can talk about incest marriages.
 
What if...? said:
Still not clear on why what other people choose to do with their lives is any of your business as long as your rights aren't being violated.
Click to expand...

Well that WOULD make for a much more streamlined system of laws regulating behavior.
 
TheNextEra said:
Wow, you are so out in far right field, it's amazing.

Incest is illegal, Being in a gay relationship is not.

We are not arguing incest marriage, we are arguing gay marriage. Being gay is legal, Being gay and raising children is legal, gay marriage should then be legal.

When incest is made legal, than we can talk about incest marriages.
Click to expand...

So you don't think incest marriages could possibly be considered a civil right ?
 
TheNextEra said:
Wow, you are so out in far right field, it's amazing.

Incest is illegal, Being in a gay relationship is not.

We are not arguing incest marriage, we are arguing gay marriage. Being gay is legal, Being gay and raising children is legal, gay marriage should then be legal.

When incest is made legal, than we can talk about incest marriages.
Click to expand...

But why is incest illegal? Should gay marriage also have anti-incest rules?
 
bubbabgone said:
So you don't think incest marriages could possibly be considered a civil right ?
Click to expand...


Aw nicely done, a conservative attempts to show they do appreciate nuance in political thought -- Lots of actions "could possibly be considered a civil right", as liberals and progressives often note, there is often a wide range of possible answers to complex questions, a wide range that does not indicate probability. Such "possibilities do not however, warrant a comparison of same-sex marriage with incestuous marriage or with any of the other totally absurd, attempted comparisons being spewed forth by the rightie media.
 
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.
 
TheNextEra said:
Wow, you are so out in far right field, it's amazing.

Incest is illegal, Being in a gay relationship is not.
Click to expand...

We are not arguing incest marriage, we are arguing gay marriage. Being gay is legal, Being gay and raising children is legal, gay marriage should then be legal.

When incest is made legal, than we can talk about incest marriages.
Click to expand...

But in some places gay marriage IS not allowed and that's being challenged ... get the point now?
 
TheNextEra said:
So? It is a distraction and nothing more. The whole "think of the children" routine is a last desperate effort by the right since they know they are losing ground. The only thing they can do is distract.
Click to expand...
Please.

Democrats have made "poor starving children" the centerpiece of just about every campaign they've run for the past 50 years.:lol:

Just keeping it real...
 
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...


Oh look everybody! One of those people and their absurd comparisons has shown up.

Polygamy should not harm any children in such a family, after all it is a practice that has been around as long, if not longer than monogamous marriages.

The "goat"? Are you in love with a goat? Tell me, how do you think same-sex marriage is comparable to marrying a goat?
 
Somerville said:
Aw nicely done, a conservative attempts to show they do appreciate nuance in political thought -- Lots of actions "could possibly be considered a civil right", as liberals and progressives often note, there is often a wide range of possible answers to complex questions, a wide range that does not indicate probability.
Such "possibilities do not however, warrant a comparison of same-sex marriage with incestuous marriage or with any of the other totally absurd, attempted comparisons being spewed forth by the rightie media
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...

uh oh ... from yesterday's SC Q&A ... this is gonna leave a mark ...

SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you’re being asked — and — and it is one that I’m interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to — that could get married — the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age — I can — I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on — on protecting a child until they’re of age to marry, but what’s left?
 
Somerville said:
Oh look everybody! One of those people and their absurd comparisons has shown up.

Polygamy should not harm any children in such a family, after all it is a practice that has been around as long, if not longer than monogamous marriages.

The "goat"? Are you in love with a goat? Tell me, how do you think same-sex marriage is comparable to marrying a goat?
Click to expand...
heh heh ... see comment #123. I'm enjoying this. Let's watch.
 
bubbabgone said:
uh oh ... from yesterday's SC Q&A ... this is gonna leave a mark ...

SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you’re being asked — and — and it is one that I’m interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist?
Click to expand...


Bingo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom