• 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

Interesting topic for sure, as commenters who seldom agree on any controversial topic partner with those who are usually opponents in support of human rights.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I'm not upset. Why are you getting butt hurt when you or your buddy get called a homophobe? We are of the opinion that people like you have a wire out of place in your heads.

If you don't want to be called a duck, don't quack like one.

And let's say, for argument's sake, they did have a "wire out of place in their heads". Why does that give you the power and right to define their ability to make a marriage commitment?
Click to expand...

Go ask a doctor or psychologist why we're naturally attracted to the opposite sex. I'll bet you $10 that they discuss hormones and chemicals in the body which are there to designed to guide organisms to procreate, instead of a negative response implying that we're not.

They can give their partner a promise ring representing their commitment, for all I care. One of the main reasons federal government recognizes marriage is to help those creating families, i.e. the next generation of Americans. Since a same sex pair can not have kids together, they don't need such benefits.

Just like how the government printing money devalues the cash you have while not physically touching it, letting people define marriage however in the heck they want devalues and disgraces marriage.
 
Mathematician said:
Go ask a doctor or psychologist why we're naturally attracted to the opposite sex. I'll bet you $10 that they discuss hormones and chemicals in the body which are there to designed to guide organisms to procreate, instead of a negative response implying that we're not.
Click to expand...
For the chemical/hormone reactions to provide the response you claim is the only "natural' one, the genetic makeup of the individuals has to provide the proper receptors within the brain. As same sex attractions are found across the spectrum of living beings, it does appear that some beings are born with slightly different hormone receptors in their neural systems.

They can give their partner a promise ring representing their commitment, for all I care. One of the main reasons federal government recognizes marriage is to help those creating families, i.e. the next generation of Americans. Since a same sex pair can not have kids together, they don't need such benefits.
Click to expand...
As a conservative, I'm sure that you are against abortions - so what is to be done with those unwanted children once they are born alive? Disagree all you want but research and reality show that same sex couples can provide excellent home environments for children

Just like how the government printing money devalues the cash you have while not physically touching it, letting people define marriage however in the heck they want devalues and disgraces marriage.
Click to expand...
Yeah, funny that. For some reason, the US dollar has not experienced the calamitous crash the austerians have been trumpeting was the sure result of all that excess cash being printed.
 
Mathematician said:
Go ask a doctor or psychologist why we're naturally attracted to the opposite sex. I'll bet you $10 that they discuss hormones and chemicals in the body which are there to designed to guide organisms to procreate, instead of a negative response implying that we're not.
Click to expand...

Hormones are not designed. They evolved through random mutation and natural pressure. Furthermore, homosexual behavior exists in nature, so attraction to the same sex is "natural" by definition. Furthermore, your "we're" is not all inclusive, since roughtly somewhere between 2 and 10 % of the population is not naturally attracted to the opposite sex. Lastly, differences are not an indicator of health issues, but of diversity.

I can recommend some science and biology texts for you if you would like. Got some great recommendations for books on evolutionary theory too.

They can give their partner a promise ring representing their commitment, for all I care. One of the main reasons federal government recognizes marriage is to help those creating families, i.e. the next generation of Americans. Since a same sex pair can not have kids together, they don't need such benefits.
Click to expand...

Who says they cannot have kids together? Several methods for same sex couples to have kids, including artificial insemination, surrogates, kids from prior relationships, and so on.

Just like how the government printing money devalues the cash you have while not physically touching it, letting people define marriage however in the heck they want devalues and disgraces marriage.
Click to expand...

You do not need SSM to devalue and disgrace marriage. Straight people did a good enough job of that already. Divorce, infidelity, marriages of convenience...and you are worried about gays?
 
Mathematician said:
Go ask a doctor or psychologist why we're naturally attracted to the opposite sex. I'll bet you $10 that they discuss hormones and chemicals in the body which are there to designed to guide organisms to procreate, instead of a negative response implying that we're not.
Click to expand...
Of course, and their natural body chemicals and or other psychological reasons are responsible for their own sexual attractions. Something in your brain is wired to love math. Someone else's brain may be more wired towards the arts. Just because you love math doesn't mean everyone who's into other things has bad wiring or is an abomination.

Mathematician said:
They can give their partner a promise ring representing their commitment, for all I care. One of the main reasons federal government recognizes marriage is to help those creating families, i.e. the next generation of Americans. Since a same sex pair can not have kids together, they don't need such benefits.
Click to expand...
You do realize that marriage far pre-dated our government, right? Second, that's positively not the reason. According to your logic, we should deny marriage rights to infertile citizens, or citizens who have zero desire to have children. Seeing as how marriage solely exists to facilitate baby-making.

Also, Somerville brought up a good point. You're against abortions. Homosexuals adopt a very large number of children.

Mathematician said:
Just like how the government printing money devalues the cash you have while not physically touching it, letting people define marriage however in the heck they want devalues and disgraces marriage.
Click to expand...
Aha, and there we come down to the REAL reason behind your views. You feel that your marriage is devalued and disgraced based on someone else's actions. I have to say, if that's truly the case, you seriously shouldn't be on internet forums, and should instead be spending this time pulling your marriage out of the gutter.

You seem to be one of the types of conversatives who believe: "government should stay out of people's business, unless they're pushing my jesus values, in which case they have the right to dictate everything."
 
Redress said:
... Furthermore,
homosexual behavior exists in nature, so attraction to the same sex is "natural" by definition.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, your "we're" is not all inclusive, since roughtly somewhere between 2 and 10 % of the population is not naturally attracted to the opposite sex.
Lastly, differences are not an indicator of health issues, but of diversity.
Click to expand...
...
...
Click to expand...
1) Silly argument - you've got to know that. Forget "natural" ... is homosexual behavior "normal"?
2) Homosexuality as "diversity"? Something to strive for?
 
bubbabgone said:
1) Silly argument - you've got to know that. Forget "natural" ... is homosexual behavior "normal"?
Click to expand...

Being left handed is not normal. it is also not a bad thing. having a genious level IQ is not normal, but is in fact beneficial.

2) Homosexuality as "diversity"? Somerthing to strive for?
Click to expand...

Not sure that you can really strive for homosexuality. It just is.
 
Redress said:
Hormones are not designed. They evolved through random mutation and natural pressure. Furthermore, homosexual behavior exists in nature, so attraction to the same sex is "natural" by definition. Furthermore, your "we're" is not all inclusive, since roughtly somewhere between 2 and 10 % of the population is not naturally attracted to the opposite sex. Lastly, differences are not an indicator of health issues, but of diversity.
Click to expand...

Just because a pair of gay dogs or mice exist doesn't mean being a homosexual is perfectly normal and healthy. Every organism has the potential to suffer from a range of physical and mental illnesses. That's like me pointing to a lion who kills a few others to screw the lioness, referring to it as a serial killer and saying, "See, committing murder to screw who you want is perfectly natural."

Redress said:
I can recommend some science and biology texts for you if you would like. Got some great recommendations for books on evolutionary theory too.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you believe creating homosexuals is nature's way of population control as the world becomes more populated.

Redress said:
Who says they cannot have kids together? Several methods for same sex couples to have kids, including artificial insemination, surrogates, kids from prior relationships, and so on.
Click to expand...

Let me state it more precisely, a kid can never have two biological fathers or biological mothers. Hence a kid is meant to have a mommy and daddy.

Redress said:
You do not need SSM to devalue and disgrace marriage. Straight people did a good enough job of that already. Divorce, infidelity, marriages of convenience...and you are worried about gays?
Click to expand...

Your car already has one scratch on it from when your son scraped his toy up against it, so no harm if I key the side of it. That's like what you're saying.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Being left handed is not normal. it is also not a bad thing. having a genious level IQ is not normal, but is in fact beneficial.



Not sure that you can really strive for homosexuality. It just is.
Click to expand...
So is homosexuality normal or not?
Is diversity a good thing or not?
 
Mathematician said:
Just because a pair of gay dogs or mice exist doesn't mean being a homosexual is perfectly normal and healthy. Every organism has the potential to suffer from a range of physical and mental illnesses. That's like me pointing to a lion who kills a few others to screw the lioness, referring to it as a serial killer and saying, "See, committing murder to screw who you want is perfectly natural."
Click to expand...

Never claimed normal. I said "natural", in response to your claim about what is "natural". You have yet to show any evidence whatsoever that homosexuality is a physical or mental illness. Probably because there is no such evidence. Lastly, you are confusing "natural", with good.

Perhaps you believe creating homosexuals is nature's way of population control as the world becomes more populated.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I am like the experts in the field, not sure exactly what causes orientation to set one way or another. We do know there are 2 or 3 different possible evolutionary explanations of homosexuality, but those are hypothesis. No one knows for sure.

Let me state it more precisely, a kid can never have two biological fathers or biological mothers. Hence a kid is meant to have a mommy and daddy.
Click to expand...

That does not follow. Meant how?

Your car already has one scratch on it from when your son scraped his toy up against it, so no harm if I key the side of it. That's like what you're saying.
Click to expand...

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that under the trusteeship of straight people, marriage has fared poorly. Gays can hardly do worse.
 
Mathematician said:
Go ask a doctor or psychologist why we're naturally attracted to the opposite sex. I'll bet you $10 that they discuss hormones and chemicals in the body which are there to designed to guide organisms to procreate, instead of a negative response implying that we're not.
Click to expand...
I just did.My wife is a neurosurgeon,who has some has some understanding of how the brain is wired.From a hormonal/chemical standpoint,homosexual have no more difficulty procreating than heterosexuals do.There is a big difference between procreating a child,and being able to raise a child.I have absolute faith that any child that my gay daughter and her spouse raises (regardless of the procreation process) will have but the finest care and loving family support any child could wish for.
Mathematician said:
They can give their partner a promise ring representing their commitment, for all I care. One of the main reasons federal government recognizes marriage is to help those creating families, i.e. the next generation of Americans. Since a same sex pair can not have kids together, they don't need such benefits.
Click to expand...

So if an infertile straight married couple can't have children (my wife lost her uterus to cancer years ago) and adopt,they shouldn't receive benefits from the government because "they didn't have kids together"?
What if a straight married couple refuses to procreate?Should the government step in and force the issue?

Mathematician said:
Just like how the government printing money devalues the cash you have while not physically touching it, letting people define marriage however in the heck they want devalues and disgraces marriage.
Click to expand...
So my daughter marrying another woman somehow devalues and disgraces YOUR marriage?
Maybe you and your wife should see a marriage counselor.
Let me guess,the one that should be allowed to define what marriage is for everyone....is you?
 
Redress said:
Unless you can define your terms, I cannot give you a solid answer.
Click to expand...
Define what the terms mean to you and then answer.
Otherwise it looks like you're reluctant to say homosexuality is not normal.
 
bubbabgone said:
Define what the terms mean to you and then answer.
Otherwise it looks like you're reluctant to say homosexuality is not normal.
Click to expand...

I have never hesitated to say homosexuality is not normal. I would draw the line at under 15ish percent to be not normal, but that is entirely arbitrary. I wonder if you realize that normal is not necessarily good, and that many very good things are not normal?
 
Mathematician said:
Let me state it more precisely, a kid can never have two biological fathers or biological mothers. Hence a kid is meant to have a mommy and daddy.
Click to expand...
It may take a mommy and daddy to create a child,but it takes anywhere from one person,to an entire village to raise that child.

For 5 years I was a widower raising 3 daughters by myself.Are you saying that I should have been forced to remarry?
My eldest daughter was already in law school when I decided to remarry.Seems she turned out quite fine.

Here's a few questions for you.
Are you married?
Do you have children?
And what would you do if you found out that one of your children was gay?
 
Redress said:
I have never hesitated to say homosexuality is not normal. I would draw the line at under 15ish percent to be not normal, but that is entirely arbitrary.
I wonder if you realize that normal is not necessarily good, and that many very good things are not normal?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Is homosexuality one of those very good things that isn't normal?
 
bubbabgone said:
Is homosexuality one of those very good things that isn't normal?
Click to expand...

I would call it neutral, neither inherently good or bad.

So now that quiz time is over, do you have any arguments to make, or positions to stand up for?
 
Redress said:
I would call it neutral, neither inherently good or bad.

So now that quiz time is over, do you have any arguments to make, or positions to stand up for?
Click to expand...
Hey! Quiz time is over when I ring the bell.
Wouldn't you say that the laws of propagation of a species in nature being what it is, imply that homosexuality is, at a minimum, inherently not what nature intends?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom