• 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

God ****ing dammit. Stop calling him a libertarian. You ****ing know god damn well that he isn't one. I really expected better from you.

Gay hating is far, far more a conservative position than it will ever be a libertarian position. By definition a libertarian must be opposed to government manipulation of sexual behavior.

I would think by definition Libertarians would be opposed to government programs forcing people to think or act a certain way under threat of being sued for discrimination. I guess Libertarians only believe in certain limited politically correct liberties these days. Either way, it is a political issue not a Constitutional one.
 
And evolutionary biology quite possibly gave rise to culture. Since the evolutionary biology case against homosexuality is pretty easy to make, you may want to step back from the attack on religion, and just focus on the positive equal rights argument.:monkey:monkey:monkey:monkey:monkey

There is no anti-gay evolutionary biology argument. As I stated before, homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom, and I'm not aware of any documented cases of hate crimes against gays committed by animals.

Gay-hate is a completely fabricated concept, there's nothing natural about it.

Did you see that blacks polled heavily against gay marriage ... then Obama "evolved" into support for gay marriage ... now blacks poll heavily in favor gay marriage.
What're they called ... Sheepists?

I call them inconsistent, and I could give a **** less what they think. In a republic the majority can not vote away the rights of the minority. All citizens should be treated equal.

I would think by definition Libertarians would be opposed to government programs forcing people to think or act a certain way under threat of being sued for discrimination. I guess Libertarians only believe in certain limited politically correct liberties these days. Either way, it is a political issue not a Constitutional one.

Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.

As of now, the government is nullifying marriage contracts between homosexuals, calling them invalid. What, did you think the gay rights movement was going to force your local church to perform gay marriage ceremonies? Seriously?
 
There is no anti-gay evolutionary biology argument. As I stated before, homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom, and I'm not aware of any documented cases of hate crimes against gays committed by animals.

Gay-hate is a completely fabricated concept, there's nothing natural about it.

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.:cool:
 
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.:cool:


Lots of research showing same-sex attractions are common across the phyla -- Same-sex behavior seen in nearly all animals

Revealing Same-Sex Attraction’s Evolutionary Role - please note this is about a hypothesis and not a theory
The kin selection hypothesis, introduced in the 1970s, proposed a possible advantage homosexuality would have for humans. The hypothesis says that while homosexual individuals do not directly pass on their genes to successive generations by having children, they indirectly spread their genes through their families.

By devoting their energy to raise their nieces and nephews instead of having children of their own, homosexuals would allow their siblings to have more children and ensure that these offspring live to have children of their own. Thus, homosexual individuals would promote greater reproductive and survival rates of the relatives who share many identical genes with them — including those that may contribute to homosexuality — guaranteeing these genes are passed on to future family members.

An Australian biologist wrote an article that was published in Dec 2012 about the several veins of research that show the evolutionary benefits of same-sex attraction in humans. He notes not only the Samoan study
First, there is the idea that homosexual relatives provide exceptional help to their heterosexual relatives who are raising families. Any genes that raise the chances of homosexuality, then, are passed on through relatives. And the extra help means more nieces and nephews carrying those genes.
but also more recent work in the field.
The second group of ideas hinges on the idea is that genes that make reproductively successful females can impose costs when they find themselves expressed in males. And the opposite can happen for genes that enhance male fitness. Some support for this idea exists as well, including evidence that families in which females tend to be highly fertile also have a higher proportion of gay men than one might expect by chance.
One researcher is looking at the possibility that opposite sex characteristics actually aid individuals in finding partners
Brendan Zietsch . . . argues that genes that raise the chances of an individual being same-sex attracted also massively raise the mating success of heterosexual bearers being reproductively successful.
and finally there is some recent work in the field of epi-genetics that has relevance in this subject of same sex attractions and why they have lasted despite being, seemingly unlikely to pass to one's descendants if one is attracted to same sex partners.
 
Lots of research showing same-sex attractions are common across the phyla -- Same-sex behavior seen in nearly all animals

Revealing Same-Sex Attraction’s Evolutionary Role - please note this is about a hypothesis and not a theory


An Australian biologist wrote an article that was published in Dec 2012 about the several veins of research that show the evolutionary benefits of same-sex attraction in humans. He notes not only the Samoan study but also more recent work in the field.

One researcher is looking at the possibility that opposite sex characteristics actually aid individuals in finding partners
and finally there is some recent work in the field of epi-genetics that has relevance in this subject of same sex attractions and why they have lasted despite being, seemingly unlikely to pass to one's descendants if one is attracted to same sex partners.

Hmmm. Based on this quote from your own link, I'd say you're overselling the data just a bit.

"With little acknowledged evidence for the existence of homosexuality in nature, and no sound theories to explain its evolutionary purpose, much of society and science have long viewed same-sex attraction as abnormal and deviant. Only in 1973 did the American Psychiatric Association remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.

Today, we know homosexual behavior occurs in many animals — from beetles to birds to bison — as well as in humans, but scientists still question how such behavior could have arisen naturally."


I'll be very interested to see where this line of research leads, but the most aggressive claims seem too convenient to be credible.:cool:
 
It means you use it. Based on your bigoted views, you are not using yours.

Tell how I am bigoted? because I this it is wrong to stick a penis in the same place turds come out?
 
Since when have laws been strictly about morality? Is it moral for a man to go to a brothel in Nevada? No. Is it legal? Yes as long as it is in counties that have it legal. Is it moral to be a drunk? No. Is it legal? Yes, as long as you don't break any other laws in the process.

Neither of the two you mentioned are gross.
 
It is fundamental to evolutionary biology that we are mere delivery systems for our DNA, delivering it into the next generation.

Why? As a libertarian, how did you come to that conclusion? You lambast religion from the argument, probably because "culture" is quite "natural"... But, what does that have to deal with self-ownership? Procreation is a conformist movement(duo/poly), and has nothing to deal with evolution directly, and may diminish property rights in the long-run.
 
Seriously. I thought libertarianism was keeping the government OUT of your life and letting people do what they wanted to do unless it was specifically made illegal. Yet here we see that he wants government involvement in people's bedrooms to keep people from benefiting from a sexual act he does not personally condone.

Honestly, there are a lot of people around here who are calling themselves libertarian that the entire libertarian movement should be utterly ashamed of.

Why dod't you stop lying, the fact that you support the SCOTUS listening to this case means you are not libertarian. Basically you are just full of bull****.
 
Tell how I am bigoted? because I this it is wrong to stick a penis in the same place turds come out?

Would you put your penis in a chick's mouth and without a condom?
 
Neither of the two you mentioned are gross.

So it's ok as long as it isn't "gross"'to you? Wow and you wonder why you're called a homophobe.
 
Tell how I am bigoted? because I this it is wrong to stick a penis in the same place turds come out?

A homophobe is an "irrational" fear of gays. I think you've demonstrated just that.
 
Where can I find the book of natural law and who wrote it?

When gays can procreate through gay sex and not a Frankenstein experiment let us know

"I don't think gay marriage is a Civil Right" - Barack Obama
 
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.

Do you conservatives ALWAYS argue with red herrings, or is just when you have no other debate tactic that you can use?
 
so is sticking a penis up someone's ass and calling natural

Wrong. And I already proved that you are completely ignorant on this particular issue.
 
Asking SCOTUS to legalize your sexual preference is not a right. Homosexuality is a defect just like serial killers and pedophilia. Being libertatrian does not mean you give up your brain.

And, with ignorant crap like this, you CONTINUE to demonstrate just how uneducated you are on this topic. Good job.
 
On this subject, your reply to Rocketman who said...



was ...

Correct. Yet I never said that two men or two women could conceive by themselves. Now, I could go into a discussion about precisely what I meant, demonstrating how all you people arguing this have no idea what you are talking about. However, it's an irrelevant point, since procreation is not a requirement for marriage. And since it is not a requirement for marriage, the ability of two people who want to get married to procreate is IRRELEVANT. This is why the whole "anti-SSM" procreation argument fails at a basic level and is completely invalid. If you guys actually want to defend your position effectively, try a different tactic. This one is pretty easy to dismantle.
 
Tell how I am bigoted? because I this it is wrong to stick a penis in the same place turds come out?

Well, I don't think you're bigoted. Just ignorant on the topic. Hope that helps.
 
When gays can procreate through gay sex and not a Frankenstein experiment let us know

"I don't think gay marriage is a Civil Right" - Barack Obama

Since procreation is not a determinant to the ability to marry, your argument is invalid.
 
Why dod't you stop lying, the fact that you support the SCOTUS listening to this case means you are not libertarian. Basically you are just full of bull****.

Where in the world did you get the idea I was libertarian? :roll:
 
Correct. Yet I never said that two men or two women could conceive by themselves. Now, I could go into a discussion about precisely what I meant, demonstrating how all you people arguing this have no idea what you are talking about. However, it's an irrelevant point, since procreation is not a requirement for marriage. And since it is not a requirement for marriage, the ability of two people who want to get married to procreate is IRRELEVANT. This is why the whole "anti-SSM" procreation argument fails at a basic level and is completely invalid. If you guys actually want to defend your position effectively, try a different tactic. This one is pretty easy to dismantle.
Well THAT was a unnecessarily wordy, my Captain. You could have just said you got carried away and made a type-al gaffe. It's not a crime, ya know.
 
Back
Top Bottom