Skip to main content

View Diary: Linda Harvey: Gays don't deserve 14th Amendment protection because they aren't "persons" (179 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Bull pucky Science (24+ / 0-)

    Yes, Virginia there is scientific evidence that indeed there is a gay gene and brain changes that support the nature hypothesis that good old mother nature creates "persons" like me to be gay.  Nature is extremely wise, not to be anthropomorphic, in that by designing and selecting for 10% of the population to be gay and not reproducing unless absolutely planned, we limit population and provide the world with a pool of childless couples who do nice things like adopt, pay for our neices and nephews tuitions and create great things since we are not consumed in child rearing.  

    Bigotry is ugly and by declaring gay people as not persons your bigoted ignorant slip is showing for all the world to see.

    THis is plane, old ordinary bull pucky science in my opinion.  The good news is that young people aren't buying this crap anymore but the bad news is that it may take a few more years before the current generation of bigoted dinosaurs dies off.  

    •  They found the survival rate (10+ / 0-)

      for children with Gay uncles increased for those families.

      And I don't doubt my own genetic predilection came in handy when males were scarce.

      "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

      by Horace Boothroyd III on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 04:09:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I always thought.... (4+ / 0-)

      ....the evolutionary reason must be something like that, and that it holds true for animals as well as humans -- which is why same-sex attraction is found in so many species. Nature's a vicious beast, and lots of children lose parents. What better than to make sure there's a reserve?

      "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

      by sagesource on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 05:07:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's very much an open question (0+ / 0-)

        what the evolutionary significance of homosexuality is, if any.  When people tell you otherwise, ask them what their evidence for the hypothesis actually is.

        There are also other hypotheses out there, like balancing selection on sexual characteristics.  To my knowledge none are really past the hypothesis stage

        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

        by Mindful Nature on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 10:01:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It is my understanding that (0+ / 0-)

        sexes evolved, ie., originally there were no sexes and individuals could reproduce asexually and the sexes evolved in order, or so that the gene pool would be more diverse. Individual what is the question and certainly this goes way back. There was an article I read on the web years ago recommended by an evolutionary biologist that made it quite clear, but I have been unable to dig it up.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site