Scalia is a Ass

This idiot needs to enter the 21st century.

---

That works too.

---

From your lips to Gods ears.

The NY Times had a piece with all his scary quotes.
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/scalias-gay-marriage-problem/?smid=fb-share

---

Just to be serious for a sec, I asked my straight stepson (my gay husband's bio son) what he thought about this argument back when Dr. Laura was carrying on about it on the radio.

He replied that 1., he doesn't think it is true that children are better off with hetero parents, but even more importantly, 2., even if it were true it would still only be one factor.

Would anyone deny that 2 loving, same-sex parents would still be preferable to 2 abusive opposite-sex parents? That 2 same-sex parents who can feed and clothe their children are better than 2 hetero parents who cannot? That 2 same-sex parents adored by their children are better than 2 hetero parents who are strangers to the kids? Etc. and so forth.

I wish somebody would respond to Scalia along these lines.

(ETA see jbara's post below. I expressed myself badly when referring to same-sex parents of means. jbara recognized the problem and cleared it up in his post.)

Updated On: 3/28/13 at 06:54 PM

That 2 same-sex parents who can feed and clothe their children are better than 2 hetero parents who cannot?

I think that statement could be clarified a bit; something more like (edits in caps):
"That 2 same-sex parents who can AND DO feed and clothe their children are better than 2 hetero parents who CAN BUT DO NOT?"

Because there are otherwise good and loving parents out there who struggle to adequately feed and clothe their children, at least on their own they do. But, GavestonPS, I understand what you (or rather your stepson) was conveying and agree with the basic thought.

I believe that gay parents deserve the same opportunities for good parenting, along with the chances to screw it up on occasion in spite of every good intention, as straight parents have.

In fact, what would be even better is if we lived in a world where the genders of the parents wouldn't even matter at all, so that the statement would be more like:
"That two parents who can and do feed and clothe their children are better than two parents who can but do not"

Because then, it's simply a matter of, the better parents are the better parents, period. (And naturally assuming that the children's other basic needs for love, attention, etc are being met.)

(Duplicate post. No, Namo, I did NOT delete a post to avoid counter-arguments. :rolleyes:)

Updated On: 3/28/13 at 10:32 PM

Gaveston, for a person who crows so much about his own precision with language, it will probably disappoint you to know that your posts don't need to be combed over. Your pedantic missteps fairly leap from the screen, screaming for attention.

And for somebody who seems to think he's the bees knees when it comes to explicating texts, I never stated that you deleted a thread, I said you edited one, which you did after I commented on what you wrote this week and you went back and changed it, rendering my criticism moot. Of course you didn't acknowledge it or thank me for my help.

I didn't comment on it at the time, because I don't like you and I do my best to only engage with you when I feel that I won't be able to live with myself if I let one of your many blunders pass uncommented upon. There are many I do ignore, but some just beg for it.

---

Namo, you dumb twat, by not commenting on the post in question at the time, you left me no way to know what you are talking about. At least identify the thread and the post as it currently exists. No more care than you take with your own posts, I doubt it was even I who posted the comment in question.

I have never deliberately edited a post to hide an error in argumentation, but I readily admit to fixing typos all the time. My reference to a deleted post above was a joke, you moron, as the system double posted so I removed the extra.

And while we're speaking plainly, I never claimed to have perfect diction. I merely claimed to strive for it. Of course such striving is the very opposite of trolling, so I don't expect you to understand.

In short, until you can prove otherwise, I shall assume you are a liar in addition to your other nasty traits.

"Would anyone deny that 2 loving, same-sex parents would still be preferable to 2 abusive opposite-sex parents? That 2 same-sex parents who can feed and clothe their children are better than 2 hetero parents who cannot? That 2 same-sex parents adored by their children are better than 2 hetero parents who are strangers to the kids? Etc. and so forth. "

Or that an open, loving gay-partnered parent would be far preferable to a covert gay but straight-"partnered" one?

In other words, this particular facet of the discussion often ignores another important point: that people who prefer - sexually or affectionally their own gender (either in gender, or one particular person thereof) have had children from time immemorial, though in ostensibly straight family units.

If people like Scalia were truly serious about this, the US would have a constitutional amendment forbidding divorce. But with folks like Newt around (three 'n' countin'!), that stands a frosty snowball's chance in the Hot Place.

Oh well, we can always count on the US for this kind of drama...

---

Updated On: 3/29/13 at 09:21 AM

"I didn't comment on it at the time, because I don't like you and I do my best to only engage with you when I feel that I won't be able to live with myself if I let one of your many blunders pass uncommented upon. There are many I do ignore, but some just beg for it."


This.

---