• 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:
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 – The Evolutionary Mystery of Homosexuality. Matt Manley for The Chronicle Review. Critics claim that evolutionary biology is, at best, guesswork ...
Click to expand...

interesting ....

Critics claim that evolutionary biology is, at best, guesswork. The reality is otherwise. Evolutionists have nailed down how an enormous number of previously unexplained phenomena—in anatomy, physiology, embryology, behavior—have evolved. There are still mysteries, however, and one of the most prominent is the origins of homosexuality.

...

if homosexuality is in any sense a product of evolution—and it clearly is, for reasons to be explained—then genetic factors associated with same-sex preference must enjoy some sort of reproductive advantage. The problem should be obvious: If homosexuals reproduce less than heterosexuals—and they do—then why has natural selection not operated against it?
Click to expand...

interesting article .... did you read it?
 
Bronson said:
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 + ?
Click to expand...

my question was ... what did you mean by

" If marriage is a "civil right" then who gets denied their civil rights by not being allowed to marry what they want? "
 
Bronson said:
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 + ?
Click to expand...

Finally. There it is. You are THAT guy.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
my question was ... what did you mean by

" If marriage is a "civil right" then who gets denied their civil rights by not being allowed to marry what they want? "
Click to expand...

I'm not the one demanding the definition of marriage be changed

As far as I'm concerned Marriage = Man + Woman

That view will never change. Marriage has always meant man + woman. Even the supreme court recognized this. You're the one claiming gays should have the special right over any other group of people to change the definition of marriage. Why do gays get that special right over any other sexual interest group?
 
marywollstonecraft said:
Possibly an internal link ...

if he'd searched a bit wider he wouldn't have made such a faux pas ....

"Gay Marriage" is as Traditional as "Straight Marriage" - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com


SAME SEX MARRIAGE and MARRIAGE IN ISLAM

Tradition of Same Gender Marriage in Igboland, Nigeria | Black Agenda Report
Click to expand...

Nigeria? Really? You've got to be kidding me

We know what Islam does to gays

Try again. Look even SCOTUS recognized that marriage has always meant man + woman.
 
Bronson said:
Mankind has never
Click to expand...

Why do you discriminate against people that are not like you? Answer the question. Or just let us know you need a little break to go read your bible.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
Possibly an internal link ...

if he'd searched a bit wider he wouldn't have made such a faux pas ....

"Gay Marriage" is as Traditional as "Straight Marriage" - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com


SAME SEX MARRIAGE and MARRIAGE IN ISLAM

Tradition of Same Gender Marriage in Igboland, Nigeria | Black Agenda Report
Click to expand...

Nigeria? Really? You've got to be kidding me

We know what Islam does to gays

Try again. Look even SCOTUS recognized that marriage has always meant man + woman. Not sure why you are trying to dispute this, unless you think even the liberal justices on SCOTUS are wrong.
 
Bronson said:
I'm not the one demanding the definition of marriage be changed

As far as I'm concerned Marriage = Man + Woman

That view will never change. Marriage has always meant man + woman. Even the supreme court recognized this. You're the one claiming gays should have the special right over any other group of people to change the definition of marriage. Why do gays get that special right over any other sexual interest group?
Click to expand...

no ... I'm not demanding anything ...

I just think that people should be able to legally marry the person they love (provided that person is able to give consent and does so) regardless of the sex/sexuality of the individuals concerned.

I can't see how that gives them rights over others ... but I see that people such as yourself want to denythese people their right to make this choice.

I can only guess at why that is ....
 
Bronson said:
Why are only gays allowed to change the definition from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?
Click to expand...

They're not. We're all doing it together, gays, straights, bis, transgenders, hermaphrodites, and everything in between.

Show of hands, who else is tired of hearing this "definition of marriage" crap? As if it's an actual thing. As if it's a law or a historical precedent.

marywollstonecraft said:
interesting ....

interesting article .... did you read it?
Click to expand...

The answer, of course, as to why natural selection wouldn't work against homosexuality would be that while it may not be good for the individual's ability to pass on their genetic material, having about 5% of the population as homosexuals might make the species more successful. The evolutionary mutation is not necessarily that the individual is homosexual, but rather that a tendency exists within the individual that manifests a certain portion of the time. Human beings that are gay about 5% of the time are apparently more successful than humans that are gay 0% or 10% of the time. Recessive traits can be evolutionarily beneficial, too.

What does any of this have to do with whether or not gay couples can raise children? It's been studied ad nauseum. They can. Just as well as anyone else.
 
Bronson said:
Nigeria? Really? You've got to be kidding me

We know what Islam does to gays

Try again. Look even SCOTUS recognized that marriage has always meant man + woman. Not sure why you are trying to dispute this, unless you think even the liberal justices on SCOTUS are wrong.
Click to expand...

maybe try reading the articles instead of knee jerking as if you have st vitus' dance.

... the evidence is clear that marriage has not always in all cultures been defined as between a man and a woman.
 
Top Cat said:
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.
Click to expand...

image.jpg
 
Paschendale said:
They're not. We're all doing it together, gays, straights, bis, transgenders, hermaphrodites, and everything in between.

Show of hands, who else is tired of hearing this "definition of marriage" crap? As if it's an actual thing. As if it's a law or a historical precedent.



The answer, of course, as to why natural selection wouldn't work against homosexuality would be that while it may not be good for the individual's ability to pass on their genetic material, having about 5% of the population as homosexuals might make the species more successful. The evolutionary mutation is not necessarily that the individual is homosexual, but rather that a tendency exists within the individual that manifests a certain portion of the time. Human beings that are gay about 5% of the time are apparently more successful than humans that are gay 0% or 10% of the time. Recessive traits can be evolutionarily beneficial, too.

What does any of this have to do with whether or not gay couples can raise children? It's been studied ad nauseum. They can. Just as well as anyone else.
Click to expand...

this is common sense ....
 
marywollstonecraft said:
no ... I'm not demanding anything ...

I just think that people should be able to legally marry the person they love (provided that person is able to give consent and does so) regardless of the sex/sexuality of the individuals concerned.

I can't see how that gives them rights over others ... but I see that people such as yourself want to denythese people their right to make this choice.

I can only guess at why that is ....
Click to expand...

So you believe marriage is a "Civil Right" correct?
 
marywollstonecraft said:
maybe try reading the articles instead of knee jerking as if you have st vitus' dance.

... the evidence is clear that marriage has not always in all cultures been defined as between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

So you disagree with even the liberal justices on the SCOTUS

And you're trying to paint me as extreme? :lol:
 
Paschendale said:
They're not. We're all doing it together, gays, straights, bis, transgenders, hermaphrodites, and everything in between.

Show of hands, who else is tired of hearing this "definition of marriage" crap? As if it's an actual thing. As if it's a law or a historical precedent.
Click to expand...

So anything goes in your book. Got it.

Anyone can marry whatever they want. I wouldn't expect anything less from a Socialist.

The answer, of course, as to why natural selection wouldn't work against homosexuality would be that while it may not be good for the individual's ability to pass on their genetic material, having about 5% of the population as homosexuals might make the species more successful. The evolutionary mutation is not necessarily that the individual is homosexual, but rather that a tendency exists within the individual that manifests a certain portion of the time. Human beings that are gay about 5% of the time are apparently more successful than humans that are gay 0% or 10% of the time. Recessive traits can be evolutionarily beneficial, too.

What does any of this have to do with whether or not gay couples can raise children? It's been studied ad nauseum. They can. Just as well as anyone else.
Click to expand...

Can gays procreate through gay sex? Yes or No
 
Bronson said:
Nigeria? Really? You've got to be kidding me

We know what Islam does to gays

Try again. Look even SCOTUS recognized that marriage has always meant man + woman.
Click to expand...

Igboland is not the Muslim part of Nigeria. It is Christian and animist.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
Igboland is not the Muslim part of Nigeria. It is Christian and animist.:cool:
Click to expand...

Where did I claim Igboland was Muslim?

There was more than one link posted bro :roll:
 
Bronson said:
So anything goes in your book. Got it. Anyone can marry whatever they want. I wouldn't expect anything less from a Socialist.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said, nor does that have anything to do with socialism. I said that there are no special rights being handed out, or that gays are alone in demanding equality of marriage. I want the right to marry a consenting adult of either sex, regardless of whether or not I intend to use it. But I certainly didn't advocate removing the requirement for consent for marriage, so the idea that anyone can marry "whatever" they want is certainly outside the scope of what I was talking about. But you're not suffering from a grievous mental deficiency, so you already knew that. So why not get off the slippery slope and talk about what we're talking about, the right of consenting adults to marry one another.

Can gays procreate through gay sex? Yes or No
Click to expand...

Gays are not a separate species. Whatever genetic factors produce homosexuality are not possessed exclusively by homosexuals. For all we know, it might be a side effect of some other beneficial mutation. That homosexuals do not have children with each other is immaterial to a small propensity for homosexuality to be a part of what makes us human. What makes an individual survive and reproduce is not always beneficial to the species as a whole. Effectively mixing a portion out of the gene pool (though plenty of gay men and women had children with heterosexuals throughout history, and continue to do so now, also through new technologies that remove the need for heterosexual sex for them to procreate) in exchange for other benefits could be helpful to the survival of the species.
 
bubbabgone said:
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.
Click to expand...

Since I made no error, that would be inaccurate. What I DID do is dismantle the procreation argument quite completely... and I noticed that you had no response to it, quite predictably.
 
Bronson said:
So anyone can marry anything they want right?
Click to expand...

Bronson, do try debating what I said. I know that it would be far easier for you to debate what you WANT me to have said, but challenge yourself. I said that procreation is not a determinant to the ability to marry after YOU commented on procreation. Stick to the topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom