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
How about a “scientific answer” (so called, although no actual science applies in either case - social ‘science’ polling is not science) on if guns in the home is harmful to children? How about the effects on the children from a advocate of unpopular opinions exercising his right to free speech?
Well, EEGator, it’s just that, generally speaking, I have lost my ability to trust mankind’s honesty.
Instead what I have come to trust about mankind is that it lies constantly.
As I get older, I have sadly come to discover that almost everything mankind advances or is engaged in or speaks of is a lie.
Not only do I not trust his science, I am having a hard time thinking of anything that man does that I trust.
I’ve made many mistakes in my life. but I learned long ago that dishonesty is not a virtue, and it is a trap easily avoided simply by telling the truth, even when it hurts to do so.
All I see all around me now is dishonesty.
Good find.
Yeah, I’m quite the cynic too. It’s hard not to be.
I agree that the effect on children is beside the point as far as the federal courts are concerned. There is no state which, either by law or by constitution, bars a person from marriage based on that person's sexual preference. There is also no state that does not impose some restrictions on who a person can marry. Along with prohibiting marriage to underage individuals, marriage between close relatives, and marriage to multiple partners, some states prohibit marriage to someone of the same sex. The court should simply rule that this is a state issue.
That photo isn’t an argument. Refute it if you can.
OK, don't argue. But tell me -- who is it that refuses to take such perverts bearing HIV out to the dump and shoot them like a bunch of rats bearing bubonic plague? Their own kind? No, it is the continually increasing segment of the population who have been schooled into tolerating, accepting, and approving such behavior, rather than firmly rejecting such disgusting conduct with prejudice.
We know how God dealt with it.
“..In fact, the research shows no link at all to “perhaps there’s a very, very weak link.” ..”
Even IF there is a genetic link, the fact that there are a significantly amount of more children who become gay, if their parents are same-sex couples, is horrible.
Homosexuals claim that it’s difficult being gay, but yet some will adopt which causes their children to have a higher risk of becoming gay themselves.
Same-sex couples who adopt are very selfish in this regard.
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.