Scalia is a Ass

[DAME]

Posted: 3/26/13 at 4:09pm

He is really making my stomach sour. He always has.. and it is nothing new with him.. but I want to smack someone. He wonders if same sex parents are harmful to children.


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/antonin-scalia-same-sex-parents-harmful-children.php

Updated On: 3/26/13 at 04:09 PM

[StockardFan]

Posted: 3/26/13 at 4:15pm

This idiot needs to enter the 21st century.

[DAME]

Posted: 3/26/13 at 4:16pm

Or just leave.

[StockardFan]

Posted: 3/26/13 at 4:18pm

That works too.

[WOSQ]

Posted: 3/26/13 at 4:33pm

Justice Scalia would have to enter the 20th century prior to entry in the 21st. That's the way these things go.

I actually think he is in the early stages of some form of dementia. I'm not joking about this. I think he is not all there any longer.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 3/26/13 at 4:36pm

From your lips to Gods ears.

[Wildcard]

Posted: 3/26/13 at 7:34pm

Reagan and the Bushes may be long gone but the idiots they leave behind are lasting

[DAME]

Posted: 3/27/13 at 2:08pm

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

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 3/27/13 at 4:09pm

If he had half a brain he'd be dangerous. No, wait - he does and he is!

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/28/13 at 6:54pm

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

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/28/13 at 7:28pm

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

I would deny that strenuously. And I will still deny that strenuously if you go back to your post and edit it, as you did recently.

[JbaraFan1]

Posted: 3/28/13 at 8:14pm

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.)

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/28/13 at 10:30pm

You are absolutely right, jbara. The way I paraphrased my stepson, it sounds as if he were saying rich parents are necessarily better than poor ones. (Trust me, I really, really hope he doesn't believe that because if he does, he is **** out of luck.)

I can say without hesitation that my stepson and I agree that loving parents are more important than unloving parents, no matter how rich.

Thank you for the clarification. It is particularly appreciated when I have a stalker who combs my every word looking for an excuse to be unkind.

***

Namo, if you are going to make the IMV serious ethical charge that I have edited a post to "correct" a faulty argument, the least you can do is point out an example.

For someone so quick to mount your high horse to descry each and every perceived moral failing in others, you don't seem to hold yourself to equally high moral standards.

(ETA as far as I can recall, the "edit" I made in my post above was to correct a couple of typos. Obviously, I didn't remove the passage that you, Namo, were such a dick about. So I really don't understand what you are accusing me of doing.) Updated On: 3/28/13 at 10:30 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/28/13 at 10:32pm

(Duplicate post. No, Namo, I did NOT delete a post to avoid counter-arguments. :rolleyes:) Updated On: 3/28/13 at 10:32 PM

[strummergirl]

Posted: 3/28/13 at 11:22pm

Scalia as a Catholic of his age obviously had a lot of kids. One of them became a Catholic priest who- you guessed it- is very whackadoo on social issues and has been connecting to "pray the gay away" groups:

http://americablog.com/2012/12/scalias-son-paul-work-for-crazy-catholic-group-that-cures-gays.html

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/28/13 at 11:46pm

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.

[bethnor]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 12:44am

the OBVIOUS answer to the parent question is as follows.

whether a child has one parent, two, or three, or an entire village, the most important thing by far is that the child feels loved and nurtured.

instead, organized religion has perfectly sensible people believing that, actually, it's what hangs (or doesn't) between a person's legs that determines what's best for the child. it would be enough to make a cat laugh, if it actually wasn't destroying families.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 4:21am

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.

[artscallion]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 7:21am

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 7:45am

"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.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 8:30am

There's no guilty pleasure to be had in Gav v. Namo fights

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 9:21am

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

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 10:02am

"And while we're speaking plainly, I never claimed to have perfect diction." This not only confirms for me that you don't know what you're talking about, but you don't know what I'm talking about either. Perfect diction?

And the post you edited was the one where you were invoking Freud in your idiotic quest to give some mythical memory of the Lisa Lampanelli of 20 years ago satirical gravitas, and you couldn't help tacking on one of your typical passive aggressive asides about me obviously not being a reader.

In my reply, I said you had no idea how much I read. You went back and changed the text and removed your line about me not being a reader. I will gladly await your apology for calling me a liar, you pompous blowhard.

Updated On: 3/29/13 at 10:02 AM

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 11:29am

"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.

[theaterdrew]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 1:33pm

Apropo of the thread's title, did you know Scalia refers to himself in the third person? As in, "Scalia allows people to burn flags." Or, "Hey, Scalia's thirsty, bring Scalia a beer." Or, "Scalia's skeptical of any social science except that which reinforces Scalia's world view." (Disclaimer: only first one is an actual quote. As far as we know, anyway.)
Jeff Rosen on Daily Show describing the ass that is Scalia