• 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

polgara said:
I looked for it on Wiki, but it's not listed as such, that I saw. Did the German people start the Easter bunny tradition?
Click to expand...
It means "What's shakin'?"
 
bubbabgone said:
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?
Click to expand...

Answering a question with a question?
Seem like a dodge to me.
 
bubbabgone said:
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?
Click to expand...

You need to point me to the "laws of propagation". You are also going to have to get this "nature" person into the conversation. If you mean nature as in, well, you know, nature, it does not have a will or consciousness, so it does not intend anything.

As far as what I think the intent of your question is, there are 2 or 3 hypothesis that explain how homosexuality could result from evolution. Breeding is not the only way to pass on genes.
 
Redress said:
You need to point me to the "laws of propagation". You are also going to have to get this "nature" person into the conversation. If you mean nature as in, well, you know, nature, it does not have a will or consciousness, so it does not intend anything.

As far as what I think the intent of your question is, there are 2 or 3 hypothesis that explain how homosexuality could result from evolution. Breeding is not the only way to pass on genes.
Click to expand...

Let's put it this way ... when you want to save a species from extinction, do you do it with 2 males?
 
bubbabgone said:
It means "What's shakin'?"
Click to expand...

Ah ha! Another word I'm going to be able to use later! :thanks:

My sister in California took German in college, so you just saved me a phone call, which probably would have awakened her and made me very popular! :eek:
 
bubbabgone said:
Let's put it this way ... when you want to save a species from extinction, do you do it with 2 males?
Click to expand...

That question has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is beneficial to passing on genes. In fact, it has nothing to do with anything, since there are more than 2 people in the species.
 
Redress said:
That question has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is beneficial to passing on genes. In fact, it has nothing to do with anything, since there are more than 2 people in the species.
Click to expand...
We're talking about what nature intends. Saying homosexuality exists in nature, as you did early on, doesn't mean it's natural to be a homosexual.
 
bubbabgone said:
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?
Click to expand...

Nature has intentions? Wow, that was subtle. Hm, I wonder what the basis of your views against homosexuality are.
 
Now I have to leave. It's been fun. Carry on.
 
bubbabgone said:
We're talking about what nature intends. Saying homosexuality exists in nature, as you did early on, doesn't mean it's natural to be a homosexual.
Click to expand...

Actually that is exactly what it means. Natural | Define Natural at Dictionary.com

[h=1]natural[/h]   Use Natural in a sentence
[h=2]nat·u·ral[/h] [nach-er-uh
thinsp.png
thinsp.png
l, nach-ruh
thinsp.png
thinsp.png
l] Show IPA
adjective 1. existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge.

2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.

3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.

4. of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments.

5. in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.
Click to expand...

If we are going to find out what nature intends, you need to introduce me to that person named Nature. People intend things, nature simply is.
 
bubbabgone said:
We're talking about what nature intends. Saying homosexuality exists in nature, as you did early on, doesn't mean it's natural to be a homosexual.
Click to expand...
Nature does not intend for humans to travel faster than the speed of like,thus it is impossible.
Nature did not intend for humans to breathe in a methane,sulfuric acid atmosphere unaided,thus it is impossible.
Nature did not intend for humans to live five miles under the depth of the ocean unaided,thus it is impossible
Nature doesn't seem to have a problem with homosexuality.
 
Verthaine said:
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.
Click to expand...

Quit trying to dodge the fact that your daughter and her partner can not create a child together. And sorry, but I have to take your confidence with a grain of salt, given that you're talking about your daughter.

Verthaine said:
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?
Click to expand...

The infertile couples are the ones who should adopt, because the child isn't going to notice a difference. Heterosexual couples who don't plan on kids are still most likely to have sex and have a safety net for that unplanned child many have. Your daughter is not going to have an accidental child with her lesbian lover. Your adopted grandchild is going to continually wonder why they have two moms and no dad, likely teased for it too.

Verthaine said:
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?
Click to expand...

The relationship my wife and I have puts others to shame. Answer this question. If everyone gets to add what they want to the meaning of marriage, what is it going to mean in the end?

By the way, thanks for the suggestion, but it's about as wasteful as the offers Comcast sends me every week to try and steal me from FiOS.
 
I can't believe all this bigoted crap is within the rules of the site.
 
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.

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...

Wrong... and this continues to show how little you know about this issue. One of the main reasons that the federal government recognizes marriage is for the REARING of children, not creation... something that same-sex couples do just fine. As usual on this issue, you are completely wrong.
 
bubbabgone said:
1) Silly argument - you've got to know that. Forget "natural" ... is homosexual behavior "normal"?
Click to expand...

Define "normal".

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

Please show where diversity is defined as something to strive for.

Talk about silly arguments.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Wrong... and this continues to show how little you know about this issue. One of the main reasons that the federal government recognizes marriage is for the REARING of children, not creation... something that same-sex couples do just fine. As usual on this issue, you are completely wrong.
Click to expand...

You must be talking about taking care of your little cabbage patch dolls if you think rearing without procreation is typical. :lol:
 
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...

Actually, your reluctance to define your terms shows that you may not know what they mean or that you don't understand the debate process. You asked a question. Since it is your question, it is up to YOU to define the parameters.
 
Mathematician said:
You must be talking about taking care of your little cabbage patch dolls if you think rearing without procreation is typical. :lol:
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Marriage is not about procreation. If it were, married couples would be required to do so. The lack of logic and gaps in your knowledge of this issue become stronger each time you post.
 
Mathematician said:
You must be talking about taking care of your little cabbage patch dolls if you think rearing without procreation is typical. :lol:
Click to expand...

Any two morons can screw and make a baby. No real skill involved. It is raising them that matters, and unfortunately there is a whole lot of FAIL on that one in America.
 
Mathematician said:
You must be talking about taking care of your little cabbage patch dolls if you think rearing without procreation is typical. :lol:
Click to expand...

Your obsession with the whole procreation thing is bizarre. Gays can and do procreate. Procreation is not required for marriage. Your argument therefore has zero merit.
 
Arbo said:
Any two morons can screw and make a baby. No real skill involved. It is raising them that matters, and unfortunately there is a whole lot of FAIL on that one in America.
Click to expand...

I agree and think America has forgotten what sex is for, plus they've disgraced marriage. Divorce rates and the number of kids born out of wedlock back my opinion. With that said, I'm not going to sit back and say "it's already damaged, so no harm in doing more damage."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom