Just in case anyone forgets what the real thing looks like.
Posted on 03/26/2013 10:41:46 PM PDT by lbryce
During oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Tuesday over the constitutionality of a California law that reserves marriage as a union between one man and one woman, Justice Antonin Scalia said that the effects on children who are raised by same-sex couples is not confirmed by experts or science.
“There's considerable disagreement among – among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a – in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not,” Scalia said during the exchange between the justices and Charles Cooper, the attorney representing the petitioner in Hollingsworth v. Perry.
“I don't think we know the answer to that,” Scalia said. “Do you know the answer to that, whether it – whether it harms or helps the child?”
“No, your honor,” Cooper said.
It wouldn't be in California Mr Coooper Because that is not an issue in it that you can have the same sex couple adopting a child in California
Just in case anyone forgets what the real thing looks like.
Studies have shown that divorce has a deleterious affect on children as well. Does that raise divorce to a Constitutional issue?
This case should be decided on Constitutional grounds. Marriage is a state issue, not a federal one. The people of California decided that they don't want same sex marriage. Therefore same-sex marriage is and should continue to be illegal in the state.
And in every state, whether or not there is a vote on it, gay “marriage” is not legal. All the votes do is confirm the already existing law. Gay “marriage” has never been legal, anywhere.
I get so frustrated that the left constantly glosses over facts like these, and manages to thus instate laws that never existed, in the guise of “turning back” laws.
A true repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” would have been to go back to when recruiters *would* ask, and affirmative answers kept people out of the military.
It goes like this: the left wants to change existing culture and laws. So they start making a big noise about it.
People get worried, and decide to hold a vote to maintain the existing culture and laws. The vote overwhelmingly passes.
The leftists then start howling about discrimination and take the confirmative law to court. Leftist judges on the court agree; they invalidate the voter referendum—and the pre-existing law in one fell swoop.
The leftists get what they want, against the will of the majority of people who desire to maintain a civil society.
I wish the lawyers involved would stop falling for these leftist games.
What we’ve become inured to is anal sex. It’s pushed constantly upon the public and through porn. The medical effects of it are terrible. It’s called Gay Bowel Syndrome, despite the best efforts of liars to pretend it is a universal problem.
If the anus is a sex organ then anything can be and is. That’s not its biological or evolutionary function. So which is it - nature or God? Either way homosexuality is abnormal, unhealthy and, thankfully, controllable, that is a choice is involved.
You are in agreement with the Bible and the US Constitution in your understanding of mankind.
Isn’t it interesting we know many gay men are incredibly promiscuous, sometimes having thousands of sex partners from compulsive, daily hook ups.
Yet we get the image of all these wonderful sedate couples who are pillars of the community.
It’s all a pretend game.
If the anus is a sex organ then anything can be and is. That’s not its biological or evolutionary function. So which is it - nature or God? Either way homosexuality is abnormal, unhealthy and, thankfully, controllable, that is a choice is involved.”
I totally agree. Anal sex is being pushed in the heterosexual community to make it acceptable. Soon, the rest of the homosexual lifestyle will be pushed as perfectly fine. Other homosexual practices will also be accepted.(don't want to get too graphic.)
If you consider it, porn is totally homosexual. It’s hedonistic, anti-woman and completely penis/orifice oriented. It’s the opposite of wholesome sex. It degrades, is violent and is sexualy immature.
I mean imagine if women took comic books seriously and demanded that everyman be a superman?
Only the naive and gullible indulge in pornography. Pornography is a lie and when people decry attempts to limit or control it as censorship that’s a lie as well.
Pornography itself is censorship. It’s been created and edited so as to censor reality and normalcy. A decent society wouldn’t accept it.
We’ve been fooled into thinking that the 1st Amendment covers indecency. It doesn’t and it shouldn’t.
Exactly, and proof positive since there is no data that says homosexuality is an absolutely genetic characteristic. In fact, the research shows no link at all to "perhaps there's a very, very weak link." Most continually looks at environmental issues. I know what I think that means.
So, given the reality above, and knowing that Scalia is not an unlearned or unread man, then what the heck was that less than knowledgeable statement all about?
Just this: Since "gay" cannot be called a deleterious effect due to political correctness, then one can't say that children raised by gays are experiencing a deleterious upbringing because they turn out to be gay.
The question is short-circuited by a dishonest, politically correct, prior assumption.
Here's the answer Mr Scalia: "Gay" itself is deleterious. Its practitioners die 10-20 years before their peer group.
Exactly, and proof positive since there is no data that says homosexuality is an absolutely genetic characteristic. In fact, the research shows no link at all to "perhaps there's a very, very weak link." Most continually looks at environmental issues. I know what I think that means.
So, given the reality above, and knowing that Scalia is not an unlearned or unread man, then what the heck was that less than knowledgeable statement all about?
Just this: Since "gay" cannot be called a deleterious effect due to political correctness, then one can't say that children raised by gays are experiencing a deleterious upbringing because they turn out to be gay.
The question is short-circuited by a dishonest, politically correct, prior assumption.
Here's the answer Mr Scalia: "Gay" itself is deleterious. Its practitioners die 10-20 years before their peer group.
That is a picture of Sergei Kostin he is the professional activist (as described by DC police) who sucker punched a pro marriage marcher. Not very tolerant is he
I won’t argue with you because as you might say, you can stop dispensing with the facts because my mind is already made up.
These people have literally turned the natural world upside down by taking wholly unnatural acts of nature and have campaigned. lobbied on a political platform trying to turn one of the most reviled, deviant acts of nature into an argument that makes brainwashing seem a benign conversation of nature,purely for selfish reasons.
They have prevented authorities in any way from preventing them from attempting to getting teens from being open to what is the natural order of things and are prevented from any attempt int trying to listen to what is the normal way of the world.
There are 32,000 cancer deaths a year, yet only 17,000 deaths from AIDS, a totally preventable disease.
Guess which disease gets the lion’s share of the funding to find a cure?
They have fought tool and nail for the right to have children but won’t do it through what is perhaps the ultimate act of nature, procreation, because it is an absolute physical, mental anathema to them.
Gay people want a cure for AIDS so that they can exchange body fluids without the need for a condom. That about sums up their concern.
Who’s kidding whom? Do you believe for one moment that ids exposed to a gay lifestyle won’t have some of them who would eventually adopt these deviant way of life and condemn them to a life of deviancy and immorality?
I could go on, but my point is made as far as I’m concerned.
If none of these points are not considered by you to be the ultimate act of selfishness, I don’t know what is.
But the evidence was so overwhelming for global warming that he mandated the EPA be given power to fix it. This guy wouldn’t recognize “science” if he saw it.
There’s nothing wrong with science, it’s some scientists you shouldn’t trust. Having a desired outcome so you can get more grant money isn’t science.
As for the soft sciences, I agree. There is no way to control all variables except one. Their conclusions are mere speculations. Correlation does not equal causation.
What do you mean "Prop 8 sent back to the states"? The state where Prop 8 originated was California, and it has already been passed by a majority of CA voters, and then it was ruled unconstitutional by a faggot judge, who now is retired. So what does it mean to send it back to the state of CA? That it needs to be reinstituted on a ballot & voted on once again? If this is the ruling by SCOTUS (and you very well could be right), then in essence this is the same as ruling against Prop 8 and overturning the voice of CA voters. Our laws & citizen votes & federal or state constitutions are basically null & void & meaningless, and we live in a society ruled by anarchy. Which is what the demoRATs & 0dumb0 are agitating for.
I’m sorry, but using the term “oral arguments’ when discussing faggots is not exactly kosher IMO.
On the other hand, considering the issues at stake,we are on the very very verge of a new "neologistic legal term" differentiating prcotological RAM-ifications of homosexual rights versus oral arguments of the same, that may be a lot closer to coming to fruition (the same way a fruit arrives at that pointt) than you might think.
Gay rights are definitely expanding the legal ramifications of human rights to the stretching point. Any coincidence in the use of the language regarding this subject is absolutely intentional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.