• 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

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.

The thing is, it's not limited. There's 40 years of data of conclusive data that point in only one direction. Kids of SS couples live the same kinds of lives as kids of OS couples, perform just as well in school, earn just as much money, and are in just as good health. The data is there. Scalia cannot pretend otherwise.

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

Plus husbands were legally permitted to rape their wives. Regardless of her consent, if they were married, he couldn't be prosecuted or divorced for raping her. That also started changing in 1975. Great tradition, huh?

Nope. I'd never compare interracial marriage to gay marriage.

Constitutionally, the argument is the same.

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.

Good for you. Your belief is wrong.

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

A checklist of fun!

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.

Too bad. Christians don't own marriage and don't get to enforce their specific vision of it. Your religious position has no more weight than anyone else's, including those with no religion.

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.

The first part of this is an unfounded assertion. The slippery slope argument is silly. Polygamy and incest are different laws informed by different reasons. SSM's legality has no bearing on either of them. Same with bestiality or pedophilia.

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.

You don't have to change your moral positions at all. But the law does not have to conform to them.

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.

Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

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.

Yes, it will have major implications. Those organizations will no longer be able to discriminate, the same way they couldn't discriminate against blacks after the civil rights movement. A Christian bookstore will have to conform to the same laws as every other bookstore. Merely because they represent themselves according to a specific religion does not grant them special treatment. And no, it will not be difficult to adhere to.

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.

There is quite a different between not wishing to conduct a private ceremony at the behest of people who aren't in a contractual relationship with you and organizations seeking special treatment under the law. The constitution is quite clear.

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.

No, it doesn't. It's taking a legal position based on the constitution. Morality, religious or otherwise, is not a part of this discussion.
 
No we don't have plenty of experience.

Yeah, we do.

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

Good. Thank you.

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.

Your analogy is a poor one. Unless you think at some point you might become gay and want to marry someone of the same gender, you have nothing in common with SSM; it doesn't affect you. If I never go into a theater nor go anywhere where someone with a bazooka, tank, or unlicensed handgun would also be, then it wouldn't affect me at all. However, though your former example MAY be possible (though one can expand the reference to screaming "fire" just about anywhere), your latter example is not possible. Therefore, since your analogy does not apply, there is no reason to respond to it since it is inconsistent with the issue of SSM.
 
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.

What Christians think is irrelevant. This is a governmental issue. Religion is inconsequential.

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.

Slipperly slope argument is a logical fallacy and irrelevant.

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.

No one is "forced" to change their public moral position on any matter. We still have people who profess their racism, publicly.

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.

Wrong. Personally, I don't care about the name, but separate but equal hasn't worked in the past.

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.

Business will need to comply with the law. Their "morals" are irrelevant... as they are now. If a business refuses to offer benefits to those who are interracially married based on "morals" they will receive consequences.

You seem to be arguing morals a lot. People can have their morals. And they need to follow the law. The former is irrelevant to the latter.

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.

Separation of church and state. This is a stupid argument.

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.

No, this is not about morals at all. It is about research that demonstrates that one group is equal to a main task of marriage (child rearing) as the other. It also defines marriage similarly because, in essence there is no difference. Eliminate gender and there is no difference between traditional marriage and SSM.
 
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.

In bold. This has been my position for quite some time. Leave marriage to religion and all LEGAL aspects would be defined as civil unions, gay or straight.
 
Btw... if some "straights" think that civil unions are OK for gays, how come they reject them as being OK for THEM?

And, an answer of "it's always been that way, or the like" is outright rejected as an appeal to tradition logical fallacy, so using that is invalid. Let's see if anyone can answer that question, logically and factually.
 
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.

1) men controlled the property ... as opposed tooooooo? Whom?
2) no need to jettison traditional marriage to accomodate any particular demographic ... you can enter into a contract with anyone about anything already without calling it marriage.
3) see # 2 above.
 
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.

I'm afraid the affect on adopted young children of gay parents would NOT be considerably less/reduced relative to a traditional married couple.
 
Constitutionally, the argument is the same.
mmmm ... no it's not. And you should hope it stays that way.



Good for you. Your belief is wrong.
I missed the USSC decision on that. Can you provide the link?



A checklist of fun!
Ain't it? You're kinda reduced to "okay okay okay ... let's just call it something other than marriage then." huh.



... . Your religious position has no more weight than anyone else's, including those with no religion.
My religious position? Man are YOU ever a98461_common-saying_2-bark.jpg



... Polygamy and incest are different laws informed by different reasons. SSM's legality has no bearing on either of them. Same with bestiality or pedophilia.
And what reasons might they be?


.

So there.
 
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.

Slipperly slope argument is a logical fallacy and irrelevant.


....

Without being slippery, explain how & why that slippery slope argument is illogical and irrelevant and does not apply.
 
Good morning, bubba. :2wave:

Enjoyed your cartoon! It will be interesting to see the ruling on this, for all concerned! :scared:

hey Pol. how's the weather out there. finally warming up huh.
 
hey Pol. how's the weather out there. finally warming up huh.


Weather is slowly improving, but we still have a cold North wind. Brrrr! I'm ready any time Mother Nature decides Spring is here, and acts accordingly...we did get sufficient snow cover this year... sarcasm intended...so I hope gardening is more productive than it was last year, when it was way too dry and hot, which stressed not only me, but everything that was trying to grow! :thumbdown:
 
I'm afraid the affect on adopted young children of gay parents would NOT be considerably less/reduced relative to a traditional married couple.

you might be afraid ... but that doesn't make it reality.

if you are genuinely so concerned about children, you would be aware that


Children are suffering from a hidden epidemic of child abuse and neglect. Every year 3.3 million reports of child abuse are made in the United States involving nearly 6 million children (a report can include multiple children). The United States has the worst record in the industrialized nation – losing five children every day due to abuse-related deaths.

National Child Abuse Statistics | Childhelp

you would also be aware that risk factors for child abuse include:

- parents being unemployed
- large households (four or more children)
- low socio-economic status families
- low level of parental education
- teenage or very young parents

none of which tend to apply to gay couples, who are more likely to be financially secure and to plan parenthood (exceptions would be those who have children from previous relationships), have fewer children, higher education levels and are far less likely to be teenagers/very young parents.
 
Weather is slowly improving, but we still have a cold North wind. Brrrr! I'm ready any time Mother Nature decides Spring is here, and acts accordingly...we did get sufficient snow cover this year... sarcasm intended...so I hope gardening is more productive than it was last year, when it was way too dry and hot, which stressed not only me, but everything that was trying to grow! :thumbdown:

Remember our discussions about a certain nursery? The story goes on. PM to follow..
 
you might be afraid ... but that doesn't make it reality.

if you are genuinely so concerned about children, you would be aware that

...

you would also be aware that risk factors for child abuse include:

- parents being unemployed
- large households (four or more children)
- low socio-economic status families
- low level of parental education
- teenage or very young parents

none of which tend to apply to gay couples,
who are more likely to be financially secure and to plan parenthood (exceptions would be those who have children from previous relationships), have fewer children, higher education levels and are far less likely to be teenagers/very young parents.

The data just isn't there.

Explain how you get valid data by a sample that is a fraction of less than 2% of the population. Note ... I said a fraction of less than 2% ... The SAMPLE is not 2 %. The BASE is less than 2% ... the sample is much less.
 
The data just isn't there.

Explain how you get valid data by a sample that is a fraction of less than 2% of the population. Note ... I said a fraction of less than 2% ... The SAMPLE is not 2 %. The BASE is less than 2% ... the sample is much less.

what are you talking about?
 
what are you talking about?
Talking about the effect on kids.
Citing data from "findings" or "surveys" with such a tiny sample.
What if there was data showing that the incidence of homosexuality among children raised by SS parents was higher than those raised by straight parents?
What would that tell you? Anything?
 
Talking about the effect on kids.
Citing data from "findings" or "surveys" with such a tiny sample.
What if there was data showing that the incidence of homosexuality among children raised by SS parents was higher than those raised by straight parents?
What would that tell you? Anything?

which survey are you talking about?
 
It was a question. What if there was data showing it. Would that affect your opinion in any way?

What if its found conservative parents are the leading cause of gay kids, what would you do? What if games are fun, but they accomplish nothing.
 
What if its found conservative parents are the leading cause of gay kids, what would you do? What if games are fun, but they accomplish nothing.
What if it's not a game ... there I go again.
So would it affect your opinion? Yes? No?
 
What if it's not a game ... there I go again.
So would it affect your opinion? Yes? No?

As the point stands that went over you head, what if games are fun but accomplish nothing. I don't do what if games. I deal in facts and facts are that gay couples HAVE raised kids to be productive members of society. Until you show me otherwise, you and the other homophobes can go pound sand. And no, not all anti-SSM people are homophobes but those that demonstrate an irrational fear of gays as you have are.
 
As the point stands that went over you head, what if games are fun but accomplish nothing. I don't do what if games. I deal in facts and facts are that gay couples HAVE raised kids to be productive members of society.
Until you show me otherwise, you and the other homophobes can go pound sand.
And no, not all anti-SSM people are homophobes but those that demonstrate an irrational fear of gays as you have are.

Calm down.
When you resort to that "pound sand", "irrational fear", and name calling stuff it doesn't look good for you.

But ... ask yourself why you resist answering the "hypothetical" question in print.
It's like you know the answer.
Saying "Until you show me otherwise" is a clue.
Think about it.
 
It was a question. What if there was data showing it. Would that affect your opinion in any way?

Not mine. What do you care if a tiny fraction of the population is attracted to the same gender? Do you sense an apocalypse in this putative study?
 
Back
Top Bottom