• 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

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?


I think we can conclude that bovines are more intelligent than Scalia, or at least more well mannered.
 
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?

the argument you present here is irrational and based on your own fantasies, not reality.
 
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"?

"Sexual interest group" -- you just have to love the lexicon of the rightwing noise machine. It's so lush?
 
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.

So you can't answer the question

Got it
 
"Sexual interest group" -- you just have to love the lexicon of the rightwing noise machine. It's so lush?

Yes "sexual interest group"

All you're doing is name calling because you are unable to refute logic

Why should only gays get the special right to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?

I understand you just want to call people names and mock, but those are not arguments

the argument you present here is irrational and based on your own fantasies, not reality.

Dodge noted

Calling people names and attacking me personally is of no interest to me
 
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.

Where have I once mentioned the bible

Quote me

If gays can change the definition to fit what they want, why can't anyone else who wants to marry whatever they want too?
 
Where have I once mentioned the bible

Are you actually going to deny that your inane position is based on something other than religious beliefs? And who is it you think you're kidding?

Cue up the "But why couldn't I just marry my dog?"
 
Are you actually going to deny that your inane position is based on something other than religious beliefs? And who is it you think you're kidding?

Cue up the "But why couldn't I just marry my dog?"

You seem confused and you're trying to emotionally project motivations and beliefs on me that I don't have and have never stated

Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple question? If gays get to change the definition of marriage to fit what they want to marry, why can't anyone else? If marriage is a "civil right" then who gets denied their civil rights by not being allowed to marry what they want?
 
You seem confused and you're trying to emotionally project motivations and beliefs on me that I don't have and have never stated

Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple question?

You don't have the stones to admit it. You can't even admit you're a right winger.
 
Yes "sexual interest group"

All you're doing is name calling because you are unable to refute logic

Why should only gays get the special right to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?

I understand you just want to call people names and mock, but those are not arguments



Dodge noted

Calling people names and attacking me personally is of no interest to me

you accuse others of being emotional, yet you seem to have some fantasy that allowing consenting adults to express their love for each other is a slippery slope to bestiality.

how is that rational?
 
You don't have the stones to admit it. You can't even admit you're a right winger.

Let's try and simplify this because apparently you're having trouble keeping up

1) Do you believe marriage is a "Civil Right"?

A) Yes

B) No

you accuse others of being emotional, yet you seem to have some fantasy that allowing consenting adults to express their love for each other is a slippery slope to bestiality.

how is that rational?

Where have I ever mentioned bestiality and fantasies?

Your ad hominem attacks are of no interest to me
 
Let's try and simplify this because apparently you're having trouble keeping up

1) Do you believe marriage is a "Civil Right"?

A) Yes

B) No

It amazes how far righties will go to hide their beliefs. I guess I can't blame you. I'd be ashamed too. The sanctity of marrige argument is such a sham.

I'm betting this is one of your heroes.

CNN Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com
 
So you can't answer the question

Got it

You'd have to pose a valid question for it to be answered. Instead of doing such, you are stuck on dogma.
 
You'd have to pose a valid question for it to be answered. Instead of doing such, you are stuck on dogma.

It is a valid question. Not my problem this discussion is emotional to you, so you have to engage in ad hominem attacks when you are unable to answer basic questions.

Do you believe marriage is a "civil right"?

If gays get the special right to change the definition of what marriage is, why can't anyone else have the same right too?
 
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.

Libertarianism (or any other political philosophy for that matter) has nothing whatsoever to do with evolutionary biology. It is evident that you did not read my posts from the start.:cool:
 
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.

This little tour de force of propaganda would be more persuasive with a link. I think your claims are just agit-prop.
 
Try and stay on topic please.

It is on topic. And frankly it doesn't matter what I think. Your pal Scalia and his buddies have a bit of a problem. Fortunately the American people are getting it right. Your views are no longer in the majority. The religioius right to which you clearly belong are failing miserably.

The majority of Americans understand that two people should be able to get married. And it's none of anyone else's business.

It impacts no one else. That's the amazing part. That righties are so unbelievably selfish. All because of what you read in a book of fairy tales no less. Mind your own business and leave gay people alone. They should be able to be as miserable as the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
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.

Looks to me like I'm the one who's up to date.:cool:

The Evolutionary Mystery of Homosexuality - The Chronicle Review ...
chronicle.com/article/The-Evolutionary-Mystery-of/135762/
Nov 19, 2012 – If reproduction is key to a trait's endurance, why has this anti-reproductive trait endured?
http://The Evolutionary Mystery of Homosexuality - The Chronicle Review ... chronicle.com/article/The-Evolutionary-Mystery-of/135762/ Nov 19, 2012
 
Last edited:
Do you believe marriage is a "civil right"?

If government has decided they will recognize the union of two people, then NOT recognizing the union of a certain group of consenting adults is discrimination. Why do you discriminate against people that are not like you?
 
It is on topic. And frankly it doesn't matter what I think. Your pal Scalia and his buddies have a bit of a problem. Fortunately the American people are getting it right. Your views are no longer in the majority. The religioius right to which you clearly belong are failing miserably.

Nope you're not on topic

You're just ranting and engaging in ad hominem attacks

Let's try one more time for *&^% and giggles

Do you believe marriage is a Civil Right?

Yes or No
 
Where have I ever mentioned bestiality and fantasies?

Your ad hominem attacks are of no interest to me

my apologies .. you didn't mention bestiality .... however, you did state:


If gays get to change the definition of marriage to fit what they want to marry, why can't anyone else? If marriage is a "civil right" then who gets denied their civil rights by not being allowed to marry what they want?

perhaps you could enlighten me as to what you mean by "being allowed to marry what they want?"

also, I am sorry if your understanding of the word "fantasy" is more limited than mine. Just for the record, in my dictionary, it is not limited to sexual fantasies .....
 
If government has decided they will recognize the union of two people, then NOT recognizing the union of a certain group of consenting adults is discrimination. Why do you discriminate against people that are not like you?

Mankind has never recognized the "union of 2 people" and called it marriage. Marriage is an institution that has always had a specific social and economic purpose and a specific definition. Even the Spartans recognized this and never had "Gay Marriage" even though homosexuality was rampant within their culture.

Marriage has always meant man + woman. So since you specifically said "NOT recognizing the union of a CERTAIN GROUP OF CONSENTING ADULTS" we're back at step one

Why are only gays allowed to change the definition of marriage to fit what they want and not any other sexual interest group? Consenting adults right?
 
my apologies .. you didn't mention bestiality .... however, you did state:




perhaps you could enlighten me as to what you mean by "being allowed to marry what they want?"

What do you interpret that to be?

Marriage has always been man + woman. Why are only gays allowed to change the definition from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?

also, I am sorry if your understanding of the word "fantasy" is more limited than mine. Just for the record, in my dictionary, it is not limited to sexual fantasies .....

Just more ad hominem attacks. Doesn't interest me.
 
Back
Top Bottom