• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

Not without external medical procedures or extra partners involved.

False. This is a rather well studied area because it relates to the cause of homosexuality and how it persists in populations (and apparently always has), which raises evolutionary issues to the extent that homosexuality is thought to have a genetic component.

The results indicate that gay men have always fathered children, but at a lower rate than straight men. This accords with the theory that there is a genetic component to gender orientation.
 
So religious rights enumerated in the Constitution don't matter to you. Well gay rights don't matter to a lot of other people. All that oppression crap is largely nonsense. It is a political issue not a "human rights" issue no matter how badly you want it to be otherwise. I suspect soon enough the SCOTUS will let you know that.

WTF are you rambling on about? None of what you have written comes close to making a bit of sense. If you'd like to rephrase it in a comprehensible manner that would be appreciated.
 
Actually the reason Republicans are losing elections is that the electorate is being overtaken by clueless young people who are much more interested in their immediate personal gratification than what is actually good for the country. Turn everything over to the government, surely their intentions are pure :roll: so you can spend more time on Facebook and pursuing whatever feels good today. I no longer have any interest in what these people have to say. As far as I'm concerned they will get what they deserve. I'm just out to make sure I don't get pulled down with them. "Change" is not always good even if it feels good today. But hey, you guys will figure that out. Find funding for a few more "unbiased" studies (oddly enough performed by those with an agenda and expected outcome), whatever makes you feel all intellectual and superior for now. When that falls apart for you, don't come knocking.

Damn young people with their hula hoops and loud music.
 
False. This is a rather well studied area because it relates to the cause of homosexuality and how it persists in populations (and apparently always has), which raises evolutionary issues to the extent that homosexuality is thought to have a genetic component.

The results indicate that gay men have always fathered children, but at a lower rate than straight men. This accords with the theory that there is a genetic component to gender orientation.

But as you and CC realize or should that is complete deflection of the thread titled " Same Sex parents" which is not what your explanation refers to.
 
Your understanding of human nature, based on the posts in this thread, seems to be lacking. You might want to do something about that.
Based on your posts, I don't think you are an arbiter of what is correct and what isn't with regard to human nature. Human nature and logic do not act in concert, no matter how much you may wish that to be so. Attempting to pillory me for that unfortunate fact won't change a thing.
 
But as you and CC realize or should that is complete deflection of the thread titled " Same Sex parents" which is not what your explanation refers to.

Sure it does. Gay men (or a subset thereof) have historically had relationships with men and women, resulting in children in the latter cases, at a somewhat predictable rate. The fact that some gay men are married, either to men or women, wouldn't alter that.

This accords with the genetic explanation of sexual orientation, which if gay men didn't have children, would have no explanatory power.

There is also a strong correlation between homosexuality and later born males, suggesting not a genetic cause but something happening in utero with later born males, for which there is a pretty good evolutionary explanation (though it remains unconfirmed in terms of the actual biological process going on at the molecular level).
 
Now you're changing the subject. If you aren't going to stay on the topic we were discussing, then there's no need for me to bother "trying again".

Here's your post:

Not within the same sex, which is what SINGLE SEX MARRIAGE is all about, which is rather a more common, common sense, given that's the argument at hand.

You brought it up. Do try to stay on topic.
 
Sure it does. Gay men have historically had relationships with men and women, resulting in children in the latter cases, at a somewhat predictable rate.

This accords with the genetic explanation of sexual orientation, which if gay men didn't have children, would have no explanatory power.

There is also a strong correlation between homosexuality and later born males, suggesting not a genetic cause but something happening in utero with later born males, for which there is a pretty good evolutionary explanation (though it remains unconfirmed in terms of the actual biological process going on at the molecular level).

the latter with women excludes same sex partners so that proves it is literally impossible without external partners.
 
But as you and CC realize or should that is complete deflection of the thread titled " Same Sex parents" which is not what your explanation refers to.

You never tire of being wrong. At least you are consistent in that. hoj and I didn't bring it up. humbolt did, here:

There's no backup required. It's reality. Homosexuals do not procreate. And I need not back up my claim. Or not. When all else fails, try a little common sense. The claim has been that homosexuals make good parents. I don't dispute that. I'm merely pointing out that historically they have not had much of an opportunity to demonstrate it, and thus lack a significant track record to validate the claim.

We just used it as an opportunity to demonstrate a lack of understanding in some of you.
 
the latter with women excludes same sex partners so that proves it is literally impossible without external partners.

I'm not sure what you mean here. If you're saying lesbians can't have kids except by artificial insemination, I think that's abundantly false.

If you mean, that gay men married to gay men can't have children except by having sex with a woman, yep, that's how it happens.

And indeed, it happens.

If it didn't, you would expect that homosexuality, to the extent that it has a genetic component, would decline over time in any given population. But there is no evidence of that. Homosexuality seems to be a constant in every human population through time.
 
Based on your posts, I don't think you are an arbiter of what is correct and what isn't with regard to human nature. Human nature and logic do not act in concert, no matter how much you may wish that to be so. Attempting to pillory me for that unfortunate fact won't change a thing.

Based on your posts, I do not think you are an arbiter on the nature of human nature.
 
You never tire of being wrong. At least you are consistent in that. hoj and I didn't bring it up. humbolt did, here:



We just used it as an opportunity to demonstrate a lack of understanding in some of you.

You deflected as usual, save your excuses
 
I'm not sure what you mean here. If you're saying lesbians can't have kids except by artificial insemination, I think that's abundantly false.

If you mean, that gay men married to gay men can't have children except by having sex with a woman, yep, that's how it happens.

And indeed, it happens.

SO my original statement holds true, thanks for the concession
 
You never tire of being wrong. At least you are consistent in that. hoj and I didn't bring it up. humbolt did, here:



We just used it as an opportunity to demonstrate a lack of understanding in some of you.
And you managed to demonstrate your own in the process. The question was what the effect might be on children in single sex marriage situations. So far I've heard a lot about children in heterosexual marriages; stunning studies over 50 years on the effects of children in single sex marriages that are all conclusively positive; the normal, required and obligatory denigration of intolerant evangelicals and religion, and little else. I'm not the one who brought the subject up here. Maybe you should go back to the beginning and read a bit. After you're done patting yourself on the back, of course.
 
I was gonna give up on this topic but I've gotta know... how do 2 gay guys create & give birth to a baby by themselves.

When did I say that could happen?
 
And you managed to demonstrate your own in the process. The question was what the effect might be on children in single sex marriage situations. So far I've heard a lot about children in heterosexual marriages; stunning studies over 50 years on the effects of children in single sex marriages that are all conclusively positive; the normal, required and obligatory denigration of intolerant evangelicals and religion, and little else. I'm not the one who brought the subject up here. Maybe you should go back to the beginning and read a bit. After you're done patting yourself on the back, of course.

No, I think you just summarized precisely why my position is correct and yours is not. Good job.
 
Not without external medical procedures or extra partners involved.

Just like sterile heterosexuals. Do we deny them marriage because they can't breed on their own?
 
SO my original statement holds true, thanks for the concession

No, just the opposite, though it doesn't suprise me that you misunderstood the implications of the argument.
 
Just like sterile heterosexuals. Do we deny them marriage because they can't breed on their own?

They can breed, just not conceive. Give in on this next thing you know some weird person will want to marry his dog for benefits.
 
No, just the opposite, though it doesn't suprise me that you misunderstood the implications of the argument.

I didn't you did, as usual you deflected outside the thread topic
 
Back
Top Bottom