• 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

Jack Hays said:
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:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bronson said:
So anyone can marry anything they want right?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Arbo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Bronson said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Arbo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Bronson said:
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?
Click to expand...

What's it like to live hundreds of years in the past?
 
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-
 
Rocketman said:
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 ****.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't have to if other people weren't so hell bent on using government force against the individual's right to contract. You know the rights of the individual and proper restraint on government power, right? I mean, you identify as libertarian, so I assume you have some understanding of what that means.
 
head of joaquin said:
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.
Click to expand...


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-
 
Hicup said:
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-
Click to expand...

I did a paper in college on the Gay Gene. I used a database of monozygotic (identical) twins. Monozygotic twins share the same DNA. No correllation between same DNA and homosexuality. Just a note.

I read a terrific cartoon on BARTCOP.COM today. A caricature of Scalia and his cohorts of the radical right. Scalia is saying, "Now, this would be just fine if it was a marriage between two Corporations of the same sex." Think Citizens United.
 
Hicup said:
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-
Click to expand...

It wasn't valid because adoption is a judicial proceeding which always looks to the best interest of the child in question. That's true whatever the proposed adopting parents are gay or staight. So he was just trying to inflame the issue.

Children don't get adopted in the aggregate, so even if there were studies that showed that children in the aggregate are worse off with gay parents (and there are no such valid studies), it would have no impact on adoption, since the question the judge faces in an adoption proceeding is what is in the best interest of the particula child at issue. If a particular couple, gay or straight, isn't right for a proposed adoptee, the judge won't allow the adoption.

What are you and Scalia missing?
 
Hicup said:
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-
Click to expand...

Oh god, knownothingism and antievolutionary claptrap.

Everything in this theory is testable. It's just a very complex system. There seems to be a genetic component in sexual orientation and an epigentic component. But all the studies are ambiguous. That's not a verifiability issue. It's just an issue of how complex human sexuality is. Get used to it.
 
Arbo said:
What's it like to live hundreds of years in the past?
Click to expand...

You're just dodging now because you don't really have an argument. You're all emotion.

What gives gays the special right to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ? over any other sexual interest group? If marriage is a "civil right" then why would other sexual interest groups be excluded? Wouldn't that be discriminating against their "civil rights"?
 
Bronson said:
You're just dodging now because you don't really have an argument. You're all emotion.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Regardless, Scalia's far more entertaining than the other justices. :2razz:
 
Arbo said:
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.
Click to expand...

When did I saw what gay people do is "icky"? Quote it

Do you believe marriage is a civil right? If so, who is excluded?

What writing from The Founders can you find where they express specific support for Gay Marriage? Where is gay marriage mentioned in The Constitution. Care to source that?
 
Bronson said:
Do you believe marriage is a civil right? If so, who is excluded?
Click to expand...


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...
 
Arbo said:
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...
Click to expand...

No Government has ever recognized marriage as being anything other than man + woman ever. Someone actually tried to use Nero as an example of when it was acceptable. :roll:

Why limit it to only 2 adults? What if other sexual interest groups also want a right to those benefits? Is marriage just about people receiving benefits now? If so, wouldn't it be discrimination to exclude other sexual interest groups their "civil right" to those benefits?

I'll ask again but I know it's pointless because you can't answer. You are nothing more than emotion.

What gives gay the special right to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ? at the exclusion of ALL other sexual interest groups?
 
Bronson said:
No Government has ever
Click to expand...

And like a record skipping at the end, you go on and on, with the same thing. I understand your views are based on ignorance and intolerance born of religion. But one day such people will no longer walk the face of the earth, for that you may thank God, if you believe in myths.

Now reply with 'man + woman' again, because you there might be someone else out there you can baffle with that BS.
 
Bronson said:
Why do gays get the special right to redefine marriage so they can get married, but other sexual interest groups cannot?
Click to expand...

Yawn. The Bible Thumpers who play the "But, but, but marriage is between a man and a woman" tripe to mask their homophobia arn't fooling anyone. Lighten up Francis. The ship has sailed.
 
Van Basten said:
Regardless, Scalia's far more entertaining than the other justices. :2razz:
Click to expand...

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.
 
head of joaquin said:
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.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but when the Mythbusters gang actually tested the "bull in a china shop" meme - the bulls never knocked over the shelves, which was kinda kewl.



so now what do we compare Scalia to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom