The U.S. Supreme Court rules all states must allow same sex-marriages

+1

many gay couples adopt unwanted children that would otherwise grow up without a real family. . . seems like a plus for society. there are many straight people who chose not to procreate. . . should we mandate these people have children?? the evolutionary argument to ban gay marriage is simply absurd. Originally Posted by southtown4488

Banning homosexual marriage because of an "evolutionary" argument IS absurd. And also, there is no biological evidence to support the argument that homosexuality is harmful to humanity.

Look Einstein , you are not a cop arresting me, you are not a lawyer making a closing argument, I'm not your boyfriend cheating on you with a farm animal nor am i a cashier checking you out of a gay bookstore. But this is 2015 and if you can not provide a link to back up your claims you might want to quit embarrassing yourself and go back to protecting your farm friends from the gays!


. Originally Posted by WTF

The point isn't to make you do any of the above. It was to show that baselessness and validity is not contingent upon having a link. As a matter of fact, some information is reserved for academic uses and are not available to civilian google searches. Its ok I understand that you or your footsoldiers can refute any of my assessments so I will continue to force you to show that lack knowledge to intellectually debunk any of my points. Here you go. This is just one of MANY. Have at it. Lol this is where both your arrogance gets you intellectually embarrassed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21846/

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/e...-reproduction/

http://m.democracynow.org/stories/14216

Stop whining. I will enjoy watching you try and skate around this one. I cant wait to hear you tell the scholars to provide links too. This will be entertaining.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21846/

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/e...-reproduction/

http://m.democracynow.org/stories/14216

Stop whining. I will enjoy watching you try and skate around this one. I cant wait to hear you tell the scholars to provide links too. This will be entertaining. Originally Posted by Mgm84

Three links of which none made any of your baseless nonsense against homosexuality reality.

Three links of which none made any of your baseless nonsense against homosexuality reality.
Originally Posted by WTF

LMAO! Who do you think you are fooling? It is now clear that you are infinitely clueless as to what's going on. Each link covered 1 or more of the claims I have made. You either didn't read or COULD'NT comprehend the information. Stop humiliating yourself. You kicked and screamed for me to post links and when I did you stuck to your predictable self and did what...... Supported none of your ideas nor provided "links" to dismantle my claims.

If we lived by your views on what validates information and makes it baseless then by your own definition your entire troll fest is baseless based on the fact that you provided zero links to support your trolling. Your stance was disproved and void by your own guillotine.

Before I had the chance to handicap your foolishness. Oh and what happened to those "knots" you were supposed to tie me in? I guess you were referencing a pair of toddler lace-less sneakers. I'm done with your fraudulent ass.

Using the terms "real" and "normal" is such condescending nonsense. One human marrying another human is all this is about and the only people that have an issue with it are those that aren't secure with their lot in life.

Why don't you bring it to the Political Forum, Mgm84? I'm sure there are lots of fine Americans in that forum who would fall over themselves for a chance to appropriately discuss your world view.

This is a perfect depiction of a much bigger issue in this country. The arrogance and pompous tendencies cloud the difference between objectives and things that are subjective. Originally Posted by Mgm84

I needed zero links from the op to dispute the claim that homosexuality is a psychological malfunction, or non-beneficial to evolution. . Originally Posted by Mgm84

beneficial to evolution or non-beneficial to evolution is in fact subjective so there goes one of your baseless points. Let's look at the subjective history of your other baseless point of homosexuality is a psychological malfunction. Another subjective point. You sir need to learn the difference between objective and subjective.


http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/facult...al_health.html

Modern attitudes toward homosexuality have religious, legal, and medical underpinnings. Before the High Middle Ages, homosexual acts appear to have been tolerated or ignored by the Christian church throughout Europe. Beginning in the latter twelfth century, however, hostility toward homosexuality began to take root, and eventually spread throughout European religious and secular institutions. Condemnation of homosexual acts (and other nonprocreative sexual behavior) as "unnatural," which received official expression in the writings of Thomas Aquinas and others, became widespread and has continued through the present day...


...Confronted with overwhelming empirical evidence and changing cultural views of homosexuality, psychiatrists and psychologists radically altered their views, beginning in the 1970s.

beneficial to evolution or non-beneficial to evolution is in fact subjective so there goes one of your baseless points. Let's look at the subjective history of your other baseless point of homosexuality is a psychological malfunction. Another subjective point. You sir need to learn the difference between objective and subjective.


http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/facult...al_health.html

Modern attitudes toward homosexuality have religious, legal, and medical underpinnings. Before the High Middle Ages, homosexual acts appear to have been tolerated or ignored by the Christian church throughout Europe. Beginning in the latter twelfth century, however, hostility toward homosexuality began to take root, and eventually spread throughout European religious and secular institutions. Condemnation of homosexual acts (and other nonprocreative sexual behavior) as "unnatural," which received official expression in the writings of Thomas Aquinas and others, became widespread and has continued through the present day...


...Confronted with overwhelming empirical evidence and changing cultural views of homosexuality, psychiatrists and psychologists radically altered their views, beginning in the 1970s. Originally Posted by WTF

You really have a disdain for actually reading before you post do you? I had already disputed that same article earlier in this thread. There were no empirical studies in their research. They based it upon favorable factors that basically focus on irrelevant factors that will produce a desired outcome. In scientific research methodology we call it experimenter bias.

I don't have time to keep watering everything down to you but you can go back and read your article and see that the conclusions were anything but empirical. That article is the quintessential example of research bias. The actual reason it was changed was simply due to politics.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1172711/posts

beneficial to evolution or non-beneficial to evolution is in fact subjective so there goes one of your baseless points. Let's look at the subjective history of your other baseless point of homosexuality is a psychological malfunction. Another subjective point. You sir need to learn the difference between objective and subjective. Originally Posted by WTF

Rotflmmfao!!! You bit off more that you can chew and it is now oozing out of every one of your responses. Evolution and biology is very finite when it comes to basic matters such as what is beneficial and what is not. BTW, where is your "link" that shows that beneficial in evolution and biology is subjective?

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/e...-reproduction/

"From a biological perspective, the purpose of life is to reproduce and pass your genes on to the next generation. Organisms have evolved many different strategies to maximise their chances of doing this. But there are just two basic methods of reproduction: asexual and sexual."

Homosexuality is neither conducive or BENEFICIAL to the reproduction of life. This was in one of the the "baseless" articles I posted that you professed to not validate any of my claims. Man you are demolishing yourself. This entire discussion is not up for debate when coming from a biological or evolutionary perspective. Like I stated before, I understand that as an American you like to think you can create a reality that applies to the collective. It has gotten so bad that we attempt to create a reality for that which created us (Evolution and or biology). You need to stop while you are behind man. No jokes I'm serious.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/e...-reproduction/

"From a biological perspective, the purpose of life is to reproduce and pass your genes on to the next generation. Organisms have evolved many different strategies to maximise their chances of doing this. But there are just two basic methods of reproduction: asexual and sexual."

Homosexuality is neither conducive or BENEFICIAL to the reproduction of life. This was in one of the the "baseless" articles I posted that you professed to not validate any of my claims. . Originally Posted by Mgm84

You do understand that Gay couples can still reproduce? Being gay does not preclude you from either getting pregnant or impregnating another.

So when you say something like this: Homosexuality is neither conducive or BENEFICIAL to the reproduction of life, it is just your subjective opinion.

Any more silly shit you wish to embarrass yourself on? Let me guess, you believe in God?

You do understand that Gay couples can still reproduce? Being gay does not preclude you from either getting pregnant or impregnating another.

So when you say something like this: Homosexuality is neither conducive or BENEFICIAL to the reproduction of life, it is just your subjective opinion.

Any more silly shit you wish to embarrass yourself on? Let me guess, you believe in God?


Originally Posted by WTF

No links, no constructive responses. Just...........I want to's, and I can do whatever I want's. Smh.

I will disconnect my discussion with your oaf ass like this......... Being gay does not prevent you from becoming pregnant, but ONLY WHEN YOU ABANDON GAYDOM AND ENTER INTO HETEROSEXUALITY WILL YOU BE ABLE TO CONCIEVE.

See how that works? Say it with me and the article. Noooonnnn-bbbeeeennnneeeffffiiicccciiiaa alll.

I will disconnect my discussion with your oaf ass like this......... Being gay does not prevent you from becoming pregnant, but ONLY WHEN YOU ABANDON GAYDOM AND ENTER INTO HETEROSEXUALITY WILL YOU BE ABLE TO CONCIEVE.

. Originally Posted by Mgm84

Settle down with the CAPS homie.

You really are behind the times.

You ever heard of In Vitro Fertilization. Does one really have to abandon Gaydom to conceive this way?

So drum roll please......scientific progress has neutered your argument.

Settle down with the CAPS homie.

You really are behind the times.

You ever heard of In Vitro Fertilization. Does one really have to abandon Gaydom to conceive this way?

So drum roll please......scientific progress has neutered your argument.
Originally Posted by WTF

It's the scientific alchemy of TECHNOLOGY and HETEROSEXUALITY. How is this so difficult for you? Without the natural heterosexual act or the foreign technology it would be impossible for a child to be conceived by 1 of the parents.

Oh wait I forgot.......Both parties CANNOT biologically be the parent of 1 fetus no matter what because nature and homosexuality is not conducive to the natural order of things. Do you not see nature dismissing your ideology? You know as well as I know that procreating with your s/o is most important, and homosexuality prohibits it.

...Lol this is where both your arrogance gets you intellectually embarrassed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21846/

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/e...-reproduction/

http://m.democracynow.org/stories/14216

Stop whining. I will enjoy watching you try and skate around this one. I cant wait to hear you tell the scholars to provide links too. This will be entertaining. Originally Posted by Mgm84

You're trolling has reached whimsical and absurd levels. Single-celled organisms, plants, aphids, and whiptail lizards that can reproduce asexually, or frogs switching genders due to human experimentation have absolutely nothing to do with biology "proving" that homosexuality is harmful to humanity.

You know as well as I know that procreating with your s/o is most important, and homosexuality prohibits it. Originally Posted by Mgm84

Nature does not care who you procreate with. It does not care if it is your s/o or her/his best friend. In vitro has debunked your myth that gay couples can not have children. Fuck they can have children without in vitro. In fact a gay man can impregnate a gay woman. Oh my the things you learn on a hooker board!

You dodged the God question. Do you believe in God?

You're trolling has reached whimsical and absurd levels. Single-celled organisms, plants, aphids, and whiptail lizards that can reproduce asexually, or frogs switching genders due to human experimentation have absolutely nothing to do with biology "proving" that homosexuality is harmful to humanity. Originally Posted by Lena Duvall

My greatness man this shit is rediculous!!
A section in the article supports my claim that the endocrine system through testosterone (XY) WHICH IS A GENDER SPECIFIC set of chromosomes (male). These chromosomes have a particular direction and anything that goes against this order can be considered a syndrome. Therefore it is completely false to say that homosexuality is ok or right.


11.) "This hormone binds to androgen receptors. These receptors function as transcription factors; their transcription-factor activity, however, depends on binding to their cognate hormone. Thus, the androgen–receptor complex binds to androgen-responsive enhancer elements, leading to the activation of malespecific gene expression. In chromosomally female embryos, no Leydig cells form in the gonad, no testosterone is produced, androgen receptor is not activated, and the embryos continue along the default female pathway of development. Hence, it is the presence or absence of a testis that determines the sexual phenotype, through the endocrine release of testosterone. Indeed, in XY embryos lacking the androgen receptor, development proceeds along a completely female pathway even though the embryos have testes".

"The Y chromosome testis-determining gene was identified through mapping and characterization by Robin Lovell-Badge and Peter Goodfellow of a genetic syndrome common to mice and humans that almost certainly affects this factor (see the molecular map in Figure 23-10). This syndrome is called sex reversal. Sex-reversed XX individuals are phenotypic males and have been shown to carry a fragment of the Y chromosome in their genomes. In general, these Y-chromosome duplications arise by an illegitimate recombination between the X and Y chromosomes that fuses a piece of the Y chromosome to a tip of one of the X chromosomes. The part of the Y chromosome that includes these duplications was cloned; by subsequent molecular analysis, Lovell-Badge and Goodfellow identified from this region a transcript that is expressed in the appropriate location of the developing kidney capsule."

Again, I understand that you want to disprove me but you have to allow truth and honesty to determine that.

I proved that homosexuality is harmful to humanity simply by presenting the purpose of evolution and biology (if you actually read you would understand this). If you can't come to an understanding that any direction other than the designed or intentional uses of asexual development, is abnormal and non beneficial, the issue is you and not I