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
Gay people happen to be the most selfish, self-centered, dysfunctional people there are, and if their civil union ends up being deleterious or not really doesn't really concern them. It's about *them* not anyone else.
If anyone else ends up being hurt , socially, psychologically, mentally, sexually, so be it.
Don't forget, this gay couple will do anything to have their adopted kids follow the same lifestyle patterns the single gay couples do. Don't you dare tell me that they wouldn't do whatever they could to have their adopted kids choose their won sexuality even if it meant going against their own sexual preferences.
Justice Ginsburg:I'd Prefer the Egyptian or South African Constitution to the US
Judge Ginsburg:Please let me know if the Egyptian Constitution allows for gay couples to adopt.
Usually, I'd advise women traveling in Egypt to have bodyguards accompany them to prevent crime of a sexual nature but that's not any poblem you would ever have to worry about it.
I don’t trust science anymore anyway.
Or mankind, pretty much.
You’re right, and for the record, we do have scientific answers. They’re just hidden by the homopsychiatric cabal.
The problem is that an adopted child has NO SAY in the matter when two butt plumbers decide to adopt him/her to be the “child” of ADAM & STEVE.
I know for myself, I would want both a mom & a dad, not Adam & Steve.
Now that recreation is a civil right, I enjoy shooting AR15’s.
If the test is what effect it has on children , then we need to allow prayer in the classroom.
I don’t mean this the way that its sounds, but Scalia’s point that science has not determined that gay parents have adverse effect on children is beside the point imo. The wide, PC interpretation of 14A’s Equal Protections Clause by liberal media, including Obama guard dog Fx News, in support of gay marriage is wrong. This is evidenced by Section 2 of 14A which discriminates on basis of sex, age and citizenship.
So 14A allows states to make laws that discriminate on bases not protected by enumerated rights, sex not protected where 10th Amendment protected power to regulate marriage is concerned, as long as the states discriminate equally against non-traditional marriage.
Here’s the answer as to whether or not it hurts children:
“58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay.”
snip http://www.aolnews.com/2010/10/17/study-gay-parents-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids
I wonder if Scalia is not signalling that he’ll vote for gay marriage. He’s saying there’s no proof children are hurt or helped.
Who is she kidding and why is she a Justice on the Court of the worlds’ greatest country?
You’re right, and for the record, we do have scientific answers. They’re just hidden by the homopsychiatric cabal.
Since when do the architects of the 'perfect' society ever disagree?
Usually the Sociologists and psych types are in lockstep agreement about how to manage the population.
If there is disagreement, that means enough people find the behaviour harmful enough to break ranks from the program and step up to disagree. When there are so many apparent conflicts of interest on the politically correct side of an issue, and so little to gain by not going along to get along, that should indicate that the gulf between the opposite ends of the issue is wide indeed.
Given that the group who say there is harm has little to gain from the grant writing machine because they are flying in the politically correct face of attempts to establish 'consensus' in favor of the homosexuals, I would give their testimony and research more weight.
Isn’t it odd the gays usually have lawsuit and court somewhere when you mention them.?
After a number of years observing the changes in our population, it is my opinion that you can say the very same thing about a large sector of the traditionally married couples as well, throughout the Western civilization. People born after about 1963 seem to trend this mindset of self-love above others is prevailing more and more. Those preferring same-sex gratification are merely a slice of the general attitude. Those preferring historical man/woman gratification are just another slice of the same selfishness. The segment preferring godly standards and behavior is nosediving.
That’s how I think it will go. Prop 8 sent back to the states and DOMA upheld because Roberts clearly believes congress can do anything they want and the people are responsible for any law out of their representatives. Thats how Roberts will go if he is intellectually honest and consistent with Obamacare.
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.