- Joined
- Sep 14, 2011
- Messages
- 26,629
- Reaction score
- 6,661
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
So he is intolerant for not agreeing with you? Or because he is doing his job and representing all sides?
Since procreation is not a determinant to the ability to marry, your argument is invalid.
I didn't say anything about gay hate, and I won't even dispute your assertion that homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom (although I suspect the evidence is thin). Fact is that both are irrelevant to the point I made. It is fundamental to evolutionary biology that we are mere delivery systems for our DNA, delivering it into the next generation. Given its reproductive limitations, homosexuality is not a trait that could be "selected for" in evolutionary biology terms. It is no great leap from there to the possibility that discernible homosexual traits might not be found attractive in the context of evolutionary biology.
These are in fact limitations from which we as human beings are freeing ourselves. I don't think it's coincidence that the issue of gay rights has come to the fore during the same era that heterosexual sex has been decoupled (!) from procreation.
So anyone can marry anything they want right?
This 'rebuttal' hits the level of stupidity that the 'so people should be able to have a nuke' anti-gun 'rebuttal'. There is no logic to it.
Calling it stupid doesn't refute the argument
Marriage has meant one thing since forever. Man + Woman
What gives only gays the right to change it to man + ? or woman + ?
Marriage is not a civil right
The argument is so stupid it refutes itself.
Marriage is the coming together of two people, who want to dedicated and share their lives together. It doesn't matter if they are same sex or opposite sex.
BTW, the courts ensured interracial marriage was made legal, so you lost that one too. Perhaps you haven't realized that yet. And women and black people can vote. This must just be too much 'expansion' and 'change' for the right.
It's infantile and silly to call an argument stupid because you can't refute it. Interracial marriage didn't change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ? like Gay Marriage does.
Marriage has never meant "the coming together of 2 people"
It has always meant the coming together of a man and a woman for the purposes of creating a family. Marriage is about children. Bringing race into this is racism against blacks. Gays never were targeted and told they couldn't drink from water fountains because of their skin color.
Again, it's a simple question that you can't answer. Nobody can.
Why do gays get the special right to redefine marriage so they can get married, but other sexual interest groups cannot?
No you wanted regulated, I don't think SCOTUS should be listening to this case at all. It is you and people like you keeping our courts tied up with this silly ****.
You're about 50 years behind the time.
Studies indicate that there is a genetic component to sexual orientation.
Studies indicate that gays have always propagated, just at a lower rate.
The theory is that sexual orientation involves lots of genes, and in some combinations they result in alpha males, which tend to be bad fathers (so there is evolutionary pressure limiting that combination), in others they result in less aggressive males, which tend to make better fathers (and hence are favored genetically), and in other combinations they result in gay males (which like alpha male combination are limited, in this case due to lower reproductive rates). That's why the components that result in homosexual orientation remain in the gene pool. They have survival value in various combinations.
Your simplistic view is passee.
LOL..^^^ Oh my??
First of all a theory requires that it be testable. None of your theory is testable, or if so please indicate how one would go about it. Secondly, the prevailing wisdom among the current crop of social scientists is that, the reason the gay gene has managed to stick around so long is that it is recessive. Again, these are just hypothesis, and until we find that gene or genes all of it will remain speculation. You should stick to politics, HOJ, you're clearly not adept at speaking about the science involved with sexuality, and genetics.
Tim-
All this vitriol aimed at Scalia is hilarious. If the question of harm wasn't a valid question, then prey tell why are all the studies done in the last 10 years attempting to answer the very same question, in regards to homosexual parenting.
Tim-
LOL..^^^ Oh my??
First of all a theory requires that it be testable. None of your theory is testable, or if so please indicate how one would go about it. Secondly, the prevailing wisdom among the current crop of social scientists is that, the reason the gay gene has managed to stick around so long is that it is recessive. Again, these are just hypothesis, and until we find that gene or genes all of it will remain speculation. You should stick to politics, HOJ, you're clearly not adept at speaking about the science involved with sexuality, and genetics.
Tim-
What's it like to live hundreds of years in the past?
You're just dodging now because you don't really have an argument. You're all emotion.
That you think that what gay people 'do' is icky, and ramble on about definitions, is where all the 'emotion' can be found. That you do not believe in the Constitution and put forth lame arguments says all that anyone needs to know about your stance.
Do you believe marriage is a civil right? If so, who is excluded?
If the government recognizes the joining of two adults, and gives those two adults special privileges, then the government needs to recognize all such bindings of two adults otherwise it is institutional discrimination.
This is where you all on the right look just as foolish as the left does on the 'gun control' issue...
No Government has ever
So he is intolerant for not agreeing with you? Or because he is doing his job and representing all sides?
Why do gays get the special right to redefine marriage so they can get married, but other sexual interest groups cannot?
Regardless, Scalia's far more entertaining than the other justices. :2razz:
Well, I'll grant you that. He's like a bull in a china shop, with all that that implies about what he leaves there.